International   Revision  Commentary 

ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


By  British  and  American  Scholars  and  Revisers.    Edited 
bi/  PHILIP  S CHAFF,  D.  D. 


I.    THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  ST.  MATTHEW.     By  Philip  Schaff, 

D.  D.     One  volume.     IGmo.     With  a,  Map.    $1.25.    Now  Ready. 
II.     THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING    TO   MARK.      By  Professor  Matthew  B. 
Riddle.     One  volume.    16mo.     With  a  Map.    $1.00.    Now  Heady. 

III.  THE  GOSPEL   ACCORDING   TO   LUKE.     By  Professor  Matthew  B. 

Riddle.    One  volume.     16mo.    Sl.25.     Now  Ready. 

IV.  THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN.      By  William  Milligan,  D.  D. 

and  William  F.  Moulton,  D.  D.     One  volume.     16mo.     $1.25.    Now 
Ready. 
V.    THE  ACTS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.   By  Dean  Howson  and  Canon  Spence. 

One  volume.      16mo.     With  a  Map.     $1.25.    Now  Ready. 
VI.    THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.  By  Professor  Matthew  B.  Riddle. 
One  volume.    16mo.    $1.00.    In  Press. 


This  13  the  only  commentary  upon  the  Sevised  Vergimi  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Revised 
Version  is  based  upon  a  much  older  and  purer  text  than  the  Old  Version,  and  corrects  seyeral 
thousind  errors  of  the  latter  ;  this  makes  it  the  best  basis  for  a  commentary. 

The  International  Revision  Commentary  contains  the  latest  and  best  evangelical  criticism  and 
explanation  of  the  sacred  text,  and  is  especially  adapted  for  Sunday  School  use. 

It  is  hrief,  clear  and  suggestive,  and  according  to  the  general  verdict,  the  volumes  that  have 
appeared  are  the  cheapest  and  best  single  commentaries  on  the  Gospels  and  Acts  in  the  English 
language. 


THE 


NEW  TESTAMENT 

Based  upon  the  Revised  Veksion  of  1881 
BY 

ENGLISH    AND    AMERICAN    SCHOLARS 

AXD   MEMBERS   OF   THE   REVISION   COMMITTEE 
/^DITED   BY 

PHILIP  SCHAFF,  D.D,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  of  New  York, 
President  of  the  American  Committee  on  Revision. 

Vol.  IV. 
THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN 

By  Dk.  MILLIGAN  and  Dr.  MOULTON 


NEW    YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1883 


PEE  FACE. 


\^i^-4S 


The  Commentary  on  the  Gospel  of  John  by  Dr.  Milligan  and 
Dr.  Moulton  is  the  result  of  long-continued,  careful,  independ- 
ent, and  reverential  study.  The  authors  were  among  the  most 
active  and  influential  members  of  the  New  Testament  Revision 
Company,  and  helped  to  make  the  authoritative  changes  of 
reading  and  rendering  in  the  Jerusalem  Chamber  which  are 
here  explained  and  vindicated.  Bishop  Lightfoot  told  me,  I 
could  not  have  selected  two  better  scholars  for  this  work  in  all 
England  and  Scotland. 

In  editing  the  small  edition,  I  had  only  to  adapt  it  to  the 
Eevised  Version,  and  even  this  labor  was  greatly  facilitated  by 
the  agreement  of  the  notes  with  the  new  text  in  every  essential 
point.  In  the  later  chapters,  I  was  obliged  to  economize  space 
by  curtailing  the  text  in  the  notes,  where  it  is  merely  a  literal 
repetition  of  the  text  at  the  head  of  the  page. 

I  have  occasionally  ventured  upon  a  brief  addition  in  small 
type  and  in  brackets  (as  on  pp.  39,  55,  80,  301,  302,  322).  Those 
who  care  for  my  own  interpretation  of  particular  passages  can 
easily  And  it  in  my  edition  of  Lange  on  John. 

This  Eevision  Commentary  is  now  complete  as  far  as  the 
historical  books  are  concerned. 

The  Epistles  will  follow  in  regular  succession  at  short  intervals. 

Philip  Schaff. 

New  Yoek,  Bible  Rouse,  Sept.,  1883, 


mTEODUOTIOE" 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCORDING  TO  JOHN. 


It  is  obviously  impossible,  within  the  limits  to  -wliich  we  must  here 
confine  ourselves,  to  treat  with  adequate  fulness  the  many  important 
and  difl&cult  questions  relating  to  the  Gospel  of  John;  nor  can  we  at- 
tempt to  do  more  than  indicate  the  leading  points  of  inquiry,  together 
with  the  grounds  upon  which  we  may  rest  in  the  confident  assurance 
that  that  Gospel  is  really  the  production  of  *  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
loved.'  In  endeavoring  to  do  this,  we  shall  approach  the  subject  from 
its  positive  rather  than  its  negative  side,  not  dealing  directly  in  the 
first  instance  with  diflBculties,  but  tracing  the  history  of  the  Gospel 
downwards  from  the  time  when  it  was  composed  to  the  date  at  which 
it  enjoyed  the  unquestioning  recognition  of  the  universal  Church. 
Afterwards,  turning  to  the  contents  of  the  Gospel,  we  shall  speak  of 
the  purpose  which  its  author  had  in  view,  and  of  the  general  charac- 
teristics of  the  method  pursued  by  him  in  order  to  attain  it.  Such  a 
mode  of  treatmenl  seems  best  adapted  to  the  object  of  an  Introduction 
like  the  present.  It  will  be  as  little  as  possible  polemical ;  it  will 
enable  us  to  meet  by  anticipation,  most  certainly  the  most  formidable, 
of  the  objections  made  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel ;  and  it  will 
put  the  reader  in  possession  of  those  considerations  as  to  its  general 
character  without  which  we  cannot  hope  to  understand  it. 

At  the  close  of  the  Gospel  (chap.  21 :  24)  we  read,  '  This  is  the  dis- 
ciple which  beareth  witness  of  these  things,  and  wrote  these  things.' 
These  words  (which  are  in  all  probability  from  the  pen  of  John ;  see 
the  Commentary)  contain  a  distinct  intimation  on  the  part  of  the 

vii 


INTRODUCTION. 


writer  (comp.  ver.  20)  that  he  was  'the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  ; ' 
and  although  that  disciple  is  nowhere  expressly  named,  we  shall  here- 
after see  that  the  Gospel  itself  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  he  was 
the  Apostle  John. 

I.    PERSONALITY    OF    THE   WRITER. 

This  Apostle  was  the  son  of  Zebedee  and  Salome,  and  younger,  as 
there  seems  every  reason  to  think.*han  his  brother  James.  Of  Zebe- 
dee we  know  little.  He  was  a  fisherman  upon  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
who  pursued  his  occupation  in  common  with  his  sons,  and  who  con- 
tinued it  even  after  they  had  obeyed  the  summons  of  their  Lord  to  fol- 
low Him  (Matt.  4:  2^).  Of  Salome  we  fortunately  know  more. 
From  John  19:  25  it  would  seem  probable  that  she  was  a  sister  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  (see  the  Commentary) ;  but  the  fact  need  not  be  dwelt 
upon  at  present.  It  would  not  help  us  to  understand  better  the  ties 
that  bound  Jesus  to  her  son ;  for  these  depended  on  spiritual  sympa- 
thy rather  than  relationship  by  blood  (Matt.  12  :  48-50).  But  whether 
this  bond  of  kindred  existed  or  not,  Salome  manifested  her  devotion 
to  Jesus  by  constant  waiting  upon  her  Lord,  and  by  ministering  to 
Him  of  her  substance  (Mark  15:  40;  16:  1).  Nor  can  we  fail  to  re- 
cognize her  exhibition  of  the  same  spirit,  mixed  though  it  was  in  this 
instance  with  earthly  elements,  when  she  came  to  Jesus  with  the 
request  that  her  two  sons  might  sit,  the  one  at  His  right  hand,  the 
other  at  His  left,  in  His  kingdom  (Matt.  20:  21).  That  was  not  an 
act  of  proud  ambition,  or  the  request  would  have  been  made  in  pri- 
vate.* The  zeal  of  a  mother  for  her  children's  highest  good  was 
there,  as  well  as  an  enthusiasm,  not  chilled  even  afterwards  by  the 
events  at  the  cross  and  at  the  tomb  (Mark  15:  40;  16:  1),  for  the 
cause  of  One  whom  she  felt  to  be  so  worthy  of  her  trust  and  love. 
Tlie  family  of  John  does  not  seem  to  have  been  poor.  Zebedee  pos- 
sessed hired  servants  (Mark  1 :  20).  Salome  had  substance  of  which 
to  minister  to  our  Lord  during  His  life  (Mark  15:  40  ;  comp.  Luke  8: 
3),  and  with  which  to  procure  the  materials  for  embalming  Him  after 
His  death  (Mark  16:  1).  John  was  acquainted  with  the  high  priest 
(John  18:  15),— a  fact  at  least  harmonizing  well  with  the  idea  that  he 
did  not  belong  to  the  lowest  rank  of  the  people  ;  and  at  one  time  of 

*  Comp.  Xiemeyer,  Charalcteristil;  p.  44. 


INTRODUCTION.  ix 


his  life,  whatever  may  have  been  the  case  at  other  times,  he  possessed 
property  of  his  own  (John  19 :  27). 

It  was  in  circumstances  such  as  these  that  John  received  his  train- 
ing in  the  faith  of  his  fathers  ;  and,  as  that  receptivity  which  in  after 
life  formed  one  of  the  most  marked  features  of  his  character  must 
have  shown  itself  in  the  child  and  in  the  boy,  we  cannot  doubt  that, 
from  his  earliest  years,  he  would  imbibe  in  a  greater  than  ordinary 
degree  the  sublime  recollections  and  aspirations  of  Israel.  We  know, 
indeed,  from  his  ready  reference  upon  one  occasion  to  the  fire  which 
the  prophet  Elijah  commanded  to  come  down  from  heaven,  that  the 
sterner  histories  of  the  Old  Testament  had  taken  deep  possession  of  his 
mind ;  while  his  enthusiastic  expectations  of  the  coming  glory  of  his 
people  equally  reveal  themselves  in  his  connection  with  that  request 
of  Salome  of  which  we  have  already  spoken.  Apart  from  such  spe- 
cific instances,  however,  of  John's  acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment (which,  did  they  stand  alone,  might  not  prove  much),  it  is 
worthy  of  notice  that  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  most  thoroughly 
pervaded  by  the  spirit  of  the  older  dispensation  are  two  that  we  owe 
to  the  son  of  Salome, — the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse.  This 
remark  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the  latter  of  the  two.  A  careful  study 
of  the  former  will  show  that  it  displays  not  only  a  much  more  inti- 
mate acquaintance  with  the  Old  Testament,  but  also  a  much  larger  ap- 
propriation of  its  spirit,  than  even  that  first  Gospel  by  Matthew  which 
was  confessedly  designed  for  Jewish  Christians.  Amidst  all  the  ac- 
knowledged universalism  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  its  thorough  apprecia- 
tion of  the  fact  that  the  distinction  between  Jew  and  Gentile  has  for- 
ever passed  away,  and  that  lofty  idealism  by  which  it  is  distinguished, 
and  which  lifts  its  author  far  above  every  limitation  of  the  favor  of 
God  to  nation  or  class,  the  book  is  penetrated  to  the  core  by  the  noblest 
and  most  enduring  elements  of  the  Jewish  faith.  The  writer  has  sunk 
himself  into  all  that  is  most  characteristic  of  what  that  faith  reveals  in 
regard  to  God,  to  man,  and  to  the  world,  to  the  meaning  and  end  of 
religious  life.  In  addition  to  this,  the  figures  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 
are  more  Jewish  than  those  of  any  book  of  the  New  Testament,  except 
the  Apocalypse.  Its  very  language  and  style  display  a  similar  origin. 
No  Gentile  writer,  either  of  the  Apostolic  or  of  the  sub-Apostolic  age, 
no  Jewish  writer  even  who  had  not  long  and  lovingly  appropriated  the 
oracles  of  God  given  to  his  fathers,  could  have  written  as  John Tias  done 


INTRODUCTION. 


These  remarks  have  an  important  bearing  on  what  is  said  of  the 
apostle  in  Acts  4:  13.  We  there  read  that  when  the  Sanhedrin  be- 
held his  boldness  they  marvelled,  perceiving  that  he  was  an  '  unlearned 
and  common  man;'  and  it  has  often  been  maintained  that  one  to 
whom  this  description  is  applicable  cannot  have  been  the  author  of  the 
fourth  Gospel.  The  true  inference  lies  in  the  opposite  direction.  The 
words  quoted  mean  only  that  he  had  not  passed  through  the  discipline 
of  the  Rabbinical  schools  ;  and  certainly  of  such  discipline  the  Fourth 
Gospel  affords  no  trace.  His  education  had  been  of  a  purer  kind.  He 
had  grown  up  amidst  the  influences  of  home,  of  nature,  of  a  trying 
occupation,  of  brave  and  manly  toil.  Therefore  it  was  that,  when, 
with  an  unfettered  spirit,  he  came  into  contact  with  the  great  princi- 
ples and  germinal  seeds  which  underlay  the  Old  Testament  dispensa- 
tion,— above  all,  when  he  came  into  contact  with  the  Word  of  Life, 
with  Him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  had  spoken,  he 
was  able  to  receive  Him,  to  apprehend  Him,  and  to  present  Him  to 
the  world  as  he  did. 

It  is  in  connection  with  the  Baptist  that  we  first  hear  of  John.  If 
Salome  and  Elizabeth  were  kinswomen  (see  above  and  comp.  Luke  1 : 
36),  John  would  naturally  become  acquainted  with  the  remarkable 
circumstances  attending  the  birth  and  training  of  the  Baptist.  At  all 
events  the  stern  teaching  of  the  prophet,  his  loud  awakening  calls 
which  rang  from  the  wildei'ness  of  Judaea  and  penetrated  to  the  whole 
surrounding  country  and  to  all  classes  of  its  society,  his  glorious 
proclamation  that  the  long  waited  for  kingdom  was  at  hand,  must 
have  at  once  kindled  into  a  flame  thoughts  long  nourished  in  secret. 
John  became  one  of  His  disciples  (John  1:  35),  and  the  impression 
produced  upon  Him  by  the  Baptist  was  peculiarly  deep.  More  truly 
than  any  of  the  earlier  Evangelists  he  apprehends  the  evangelical 
ends  to  which,  amidst  all  its  sternness,  the  Baptist's  mission  really 
pointed.  If  the  three  bring  before  us  with  greater  force  the  prophet 
of  repentance  reproving  the  sins  of  Israel,  he  on  the  other  hand  shows 
in  a  clearer  light  the  forerunner  of  Jesus  in  his  immediate  relation  to 
his  Lord,  and  in  his  apprehension  of  the  spiritual  power  and  glory  of 
His  coming  (comp.  John  1 :  26,  27;  3:  29,  30,  with  Matt.  3  :  11,  12 ; 
Mark  1:   7,  8;  Luke  3:  15-17). 

The  Baptist  was  the  first  to  direct  his  disciple  to  Jesus  (chap.  1 : 
36).     In  company  with  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's  brother,  he  immedi- 


INTKODUCTION. 


ately  followed  Him,  inquired  of  Him  where  He  stayed,  accompanied 
Him  to  His  house,  and  remained  with  Him  that  day.  What  the  sub- 
ject of  conversation  was  we  are  not  informed,  but  the  divine  Sower 
had  scattered  His  seed  in  the  young  ingenuous  heart ;  and  when 
shortly  afterwards  Jesus  called  him  to  the  apostleship  he  immediately 
obeyed  the  summons  (Matt,  4:  21,  22).  From  this  time  onward  to 
the  close  of  his  Master's  earthly  career  John  was  His  constant  fol- 
lower, entering  we  cannot  doubt  into  a  closer  union  of  spirit  with 
Him  than  was  attained  by  any  other  disciple.  Not  only  was  he  one 
of  the  chosen  three  who  were  present  at  the  raising  of  the  daughter  of 
Jairus,  at  the  Transfiguration,  and  at  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  (Luke 
8:  51 ;  9  :  28;  Mark  14  :  33) ;  even  of  that  small  election  he  was,  to 
use  the  language  of  the  fathers,  the  most  elect.  He  leaned  upon  the 
breast  of  Jesus  at  the  Last  Supper,  not  accidentally, — but  as  the  dis- 
ciple whom  He  loved  (John  13 :  23) ;  he  pressed  after  Him  into  the 
court  of  Caiaphas  at  His  trial  (chap.  18 :  15)  ;  he  alone  seems  to  have 
accompanied  Him  to  Calvary  (chap.  19  :  26)  ;  to  him  Jesus  committed 
the  care  of  His  mother  at  the  cross  (chap.  19  :  26,  27) ;  he  was  the 
first  on  the  Resurrection  morning,  after  hearing  the  tidings  of  Mary 
Magdalene,  to  reach  the  sepulchre  (chap.  20 :  4) ;  and,  when  Jesus 
appeared  after  His  Resurrection  to  the  disciples  by  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
he  first  recognized  the  Lord  (chap.  21 :  7). 

Little  is  related  of  John  in  the  earlier  Gospels.  The  chief  incidents, 
in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned,  are  his  coming  to  Jesus  and 
saying,  •  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out  devils  in  Thy  name  ;  and  we 
forbade  him,  because  he  followeth  not  with  us'  (Luke  9 :  49),  and  his 
receiving  from  Jesus,  along  with  his  brother  James,  the  title  of  '  Son 
of  Thunder'  (Mark  3:  17), — a  title  given  to  denote  not  any  posses- 
sion of  startling  eloquence,  but  the  power  and  vehemence  of  his  cha- 
racter. It  has  indeed  been  urged  by  foes,  and  even  admitted  by 
friends,  that  such  is  not  the  character  of  the  Apostle  as  it  appears  in 
the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  this  is  a  superficial  view.  No  doubt  in  chaps. 
13-17,  when  the  conflict  is  over  and  Jesus  is  alone  with  His  disciples, 
we  breathe  the  atmosphere  of  nothing  but  the  most  perfect  love  and 
peace.  The  other  chapters  of  the  Gospel,  however,  both  before  and 
after  these,  leave  a  different  impression  upon  the  mind.  The  '  Son  of 
Thunder '  appears  in  every  incident,  in  every  discourse  which  he  re- 
cords.    To  draw  a  contrast  between  the  fire  of  youth  as  it  appears  in 


INTRODUCTION. 


the  John  of  the  first  three  Evangelists  and  the  mellowed  gentleness 
of  old  age  in  the  John  of  the  fourth  is  altogether  misleading.  The 
vehement,  keen,  impetuous  temperament  is  not  less  observable  in  the 
latter  than  in  the  former.  We  seem  to  trace  at  every  step,  while  the 
conflict  of  Jesus  with  His  enemies  is  described,  the  burning  zeal  of 
one  who  would  call  down  fire  from  heaven  upon  the  guilty  '  Jews.' 

The  continued  possession  of  the  same  character  is  at  least  entirely 
consistent  with  what  is  told  us  of  John  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ; 
and  it  bursts  forth  again  in  all  its  early  ardor  in  the  traditions  of  the 
Church.  John  was  present  with  Peter  at  the  healing  of  the  lame  man 
(Acts  3:  1-11),  and,  although  the  address  of  the  latter  is  alone  re- 
corded, he  does  not  seem  to  have  been  silent  on  the  occasion  (chap. 
4:  1).  He  exhibited  the  same  boldness  as  his  fellow-apostle  in  the 
presence  of  the  Council  (chap.  4:  13);  joined  him  in  the  expression 
of  his  determination  to  speak  what  he  had  seen  and  heard  (chap.  4 : 
19,  20) ;  was  probably  at  a  later  point  coiumitted  with  him  to  prison 
(chap.  5:  18),  and  miraculously  delivered  (chap.  5: 19) ;  was  brought 
again  before  the  Sanhedrin  (chap.  5:  27),  and  through  the  influence 
of  Gamaliel,  once  more  set  free  to  resume  his  labors  (chap.  5:  41,  42). 
After  Samaria  had  been  evangelized  by  Philip,  he  was  sent  to  that  city 
with  Peter  that  they  might  complete  the  work  begun  (chap.  8 :  14-17) ; 
and,  this  mission  accomplished,  he  returned  with  him  to  Jerusalem, 
preaching  the  gospel  at  the  same  time  in  many  villages  of  the  Samaritans 
(chap.  8:  25).  From  this  time  we  hear  nothing  of  him  until  the  first 
great  Council  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  15  ;  Gal.  2).  Then  Paul  found  him 
in  the  holy  city,  regarded  by  the  Christian  community  as  one  of 
the  'pillars'  of  the  Church, — a  circumstance  which,  combined  with 
Paul's  private  explanations  to  those  so  named  (Gal.  2:  2,  9),  may 
justly  lead  to  the  inference  that  he  still  belonged  to  that  portion  of 
the  Christian  community  which  had  not  risen  to  the  full  conception  of 
the  independence  and  freedom  of  the  Christian  faith. 

Scripture  says  nothing  more  of  John's  apostolic  labors.  It  was 
now  A.  D.  50 ;  and  we  have  no  further  information  regarding  him 
until  he  appears,  in  the  traditions  of  the  Church,  as  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century.  An  attempt  has  indeed 
been  recently  made  to  cast  doubt  on  John's  residence  at  Ephesus,  but 
there  are  few  points  in  the  history  of  early  Christianity  upon  which 
tradition  is  so  unanimous,  and  there  need  be  no  hesitation  in  accept- 


INTRODUCTION. 


ing  the  statement.  "We  do  not  know  the  exact  date  at  which  he  went 
to  this  city.  It  can  hardly  have  been  during  the  lil^  of  Paul,  or  that 
Apostle  would  not,  in  accordance  with  his  own  principles  of  action, 
have  connected  himself  so  closely  with  the  district  (Rom.  15:  20;  2 
Cor.  10:  16).  The  probability  is  that,  deeply  attached  to  Jerusalem, 
clinging  to  the  memories  associated  with  the  labors  and  death  of  Jesus, 
he  lingered  in  the  sacred  city  until  its  destruction  approached.  Then 
he  may  have  wandered  forth  from  a  place  upon  which  the  judgment 
of  God  had  set  his  seal,  and  found  his  way  to  Ephesus.  The  tradi- 
tions of  the  Church  regarding  him  while  he  continued  there  possess 
singular  interest,  partly  from  the  light  thrown  by  them  upon  the  times, 
partly  from  the  touching  pathos  by  which  some  of  them  are  marked, 
mainly  because  they  enable  us  so  thoroughly  to  identify  the  aged 
Apostle  with  the  youthful  follower  of  Jesus  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
Such  is  the  story  of  his  meeting  with  Cerinthus.  It  is  said  that  the 
Apostle  once  entered  the  bath-house  at  Ephesus,  and,  discovering  Ce- 
rinthus the  heretic  within,  sprang  forth  exclaiming,  '  Let  us  flee,  lest 
even  the  bath-house  fall  in,  since  there  is  within  it  Cerinthus,  the 
enemy  of  the  truth.'  Such  also  is  the  story  of  John  and  the  young 
robber,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  stories  of  Christian  antiquity,  which 
we  have  no  room  to  relate  ;  and  such  the  tradition  that  the  Apostle, 
when  too  old  to  walk,  was  carried  by  his  disciples  into  the  midst  of  the 
congregation  at  Ephesus,  only  to  repeat  over  and  over  again  to  his 
fellow-believers,  *  Little  children,  love  one  another.'  Other  stories 
are  told  of  him  which  may  be  omitted  as  less  characteristic  than  these ; 
but  the  general  impression  left  by  them  all  is  not  only  that  the  early 
Church  possessed  a  remarkably  distinct  conception  of  the  personality 
of  the  apostle,  but  that  its  conception  corresponded  in  the  closest  man- 
ner to  the  mingled  vehemence  and  tenderness  which  come  out  so 
strongly  in  the  picture  of  him  presented  by  the  earlier  Gospels  and  by 
his  own  writings.  From  Ephesus,  according  to  a  tolerably  unanimous, 
if  rather  indefinite  tradition,  which  seems  to  be  confirmed  by  Rev.  1 : 
9,  John  was  banished  for  a  time  to  the  island  of  Patmos,  a  wretched 
rock  in  the  ^Egean  Sea,  but  was  afterwards  permitted  to  return  to  the 
scene  of  his  labors  in  Ephesus.  It  was  under  Nerva,  it  is  said,  that 
his  return  took  place  (a. d.  96-98),  although  he  is  also  spoken  of  as 
having  been  alive  after  the  accession  of  Trajan  (a.d.  98).  The  days 
of  the  aged  Apostle  were  now,  however,  drawing  to  a  close.     The  com- 


xiv  INTRODUCTION. 


panions  of  his  earlier  years,  those  whose  eyes  had  seen  and  "whose  ears 
had  heard  Hira  who  Avas  the  Word  of  Life,  had  been  long  since  gath- 
ered to  their  rest.  His  time,  too,  was  come.  He  had  waited  for  more 
than  threescore  years  to  rejoin  the  Master  whom  he  loved.  He  died 
and  was  buried  at  Ephesus ;  and  with  him  closes  the  Apostolic  age. 

II.    AUTHORSHIP    OF    THE    GOSPEL. 

It  is  the  almost  unanimous  tradition  of  the  Church  that  the  Apostle 
John  wrote  this  Gospel.  Our  earliest  authorities  for  the  fact  are 
Theophilus  of  Antioch  (a.  d.  175),  Irenaeus  (a.d.  130-200),  the  Mura- 
torian  Fragment  (a.d.  170-180),  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  (a.d. 
160-220).  The  accounts  of  these  writers  differ  slightly  from  each 
other ;  but  all  agree  in  distinctly  attributing  our  present  Gospel  to 
John;  while  the  fourth,  who  is  clearly  independent  of  the  other  three, 
draws  a  remarkable  distinction  between  it  and  the  earlier  Gospels, 
the  latter  being  spoken  of  as  containing  'the  bodily  things,'  the  former 
as  '  a  spiritual  Gospel.'  To  the  distinction  thus  drawn  we  shall  pre- 
sently return. 

If,  as  the  above-mentioned  authorities  lead  us  to  infer,  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  made  public  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century  (and  it 
is  unnecessary  to  discuss  here  the  question  of  an  interval  between  the 
writing  and  the  publication),  we  naturally  look  for  quotations  from 
or  allusions  to  it  in  the  writings  that  have  come  down  to  us  from  the 
period  immediately  following  that  date.  These  prove  fewer  than  we 
might  expect.  Xot,  indeed,  that  they  are  wholly  wanting.  The  ac- 
knowledged Epistles  of  Ignatius  and  the  '  Shepherd '  of  Hermas,  be- 
longing respectively  to  the  first  twenty  and  the  first  forty  years  of  the 
second  century,  exhibit  a  style  of  thought,  sometimes  even  of  language, 
closely  connected  with  that  of  the  Gospel.  The  Epistle  of  Polycarp  to 
the  Philippians,^  again,  a  little  later  than  the  '  Shepherd,'  and  the 
writings  of  Papias  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  in  bearing 
witness  to  the  first  Epistle  as  the  work  of  John,  lead  us  directly  to 
the  same  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  Gospel,  for  few  will  doubt  that 
the  two  books  are  from  the  same  hand.  The  account  of  the  martyr- 
dom of  Polycarp,  moreover,  written  in  the  middle  of  the  same  century, 
is  so  obviously  modelled  upon  John's  narrative  of  the  death  of  Jesus, 
that  that  narrative  must  have  been  in  possession  of  the  Church  before 
the   '  Martyrdom '    was  penned.      Finally,   the   Epistle  to  Diognetus 


INTRODUCTION. 


(a.d.  120),  the  address  of  Tatian  to  tlie  Greeks  (a.d.  lGO-180),  tne 
writings  of  Justin  Martyr  (a.  d.  147-160),  and  the  letter  of  the 
Churches  of  Vienne  and  Lyons  (a.d.  177),  all  of  which  seem  with 
more  or  less  clearness  to  quote  from  the  Fourth  Gospel,  bring  us  down 
to  the  distinct  statements  of  Theophilus,  Irenaeus,  the  Muratorian 
Fragment,  and  Clement,  alluded  to  above,  and  to  a  date  at  which  the 
testimonies  to  the  Johannine  authorship  of  the  Gospel  are  as  clear 
and  full  as  can  be  desired. 

The  stream  of  allusion  we  have  been  following  has  flowed  through 
the  writings  of  the  orthodox  Church.  But  it  is  a  remarkable  fact, 
that  allusions  to  our  Gospel  are  still  earlier  and  clearer  in  the  hereti- 
cal writings  of  the  first  half  of  the  second  century.  This  is  especially 
the  case  with  Basilides  and  his  followers,  as  early  as  a.  d.  125 ;  and 
they  are  followed  by  the  Valentinians,  who  can  hardly  be  separated 
from  their  Master,  Valentinus  (a.  d,  14.0),  and  by  Ptolemceus  and 
Heracleon  (about  a.  d.  170-180),  the  last  mentioned  having  even 
written  a  commentary  upon  the  Gospel.  To  these  facts  may  be  added 
several  important  considerations.  Thus,  to  quote  the  words  of  Bishop 
Lightfoot,  'when  soon  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century  diver- 
gent readings  of  a  striking  kind  occur  in  John's  Gospel,  we  are  led  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  text  has  already  a  history,  and  that  the  Gospel 
therefore  cannot  have  been  very  recent.'  ^  Again,  in  the  early  years 
of  the  second  half  of  the  second  century,  the  Gospel  formed  a  part  of 
the  Syriac  and  old  Latin  translations  of  the  New  Testament,  and  as 
such  was  read  in  the  public  assemblies  of  the  churches  of  Syria  and 
Africa.  Lastly,  in  the  Paschal  Controversies  (about  a.  d.  160)  there 
is  hardly  reason  to  doubt  that  the  apparent  discrepancy  between  this 
and  the  earlier  Gospels,  as  to  the  date  of  the  Last  Supper  of  Jesus, 
played  no  small  part  in  the  dispute  by  which  the  whole  Church  was 
rent. 

All  these  circumstances  go  far  towards  answering  the  allegation 
often  made,  that  the  paucity  of  allusions  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  in  the 
first  seventy  or  eighty  years  after  its  publication  is  inconsistent  with 
its  authenticity.  To  present  them  thus,  however,  as  an  argument 
that  the  Gospel  is  authentic,  is  not  only  greatly  to  understate  the 
case ;  it  is  even  to  put  the  reader  upon  a  wrong  track  for  arriving  at 

*  On  a  Fresh  Revision  of  the  Xew  TestameiU,  p.  20. 


xvi  INTRODUCTION. 


a  positive  conclusion.  The  real  ground  of  conviction  is  the  consistent 
belief  of  the  Church.  It  is  not  for  those  v?ho  accept  the  Gospel  to 
account  for  its  admission  into  the  canon  of  the  last  quarter  of  the 
second  century,  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  true  ;  it  is  for  those  who 
reject  it  to  account  for  this,  on  the  supposition  that  it  is  false.  The 
early  Church  was  not  a  mass  of  individual  units  believing  in  Jesus, 
each  in  his  own  way  nourishing  in  secrecy  and  independence  his  own 
form  of  faith.  It  was  an  organized  community,  conscious  of  a  common 
foundation,  a  common  faith,  and  common  ordinances  of  spiritual  nou- 
rishment for  all  persons  in  all  lands  who  held  the  one  Head,  Christ 
Jesus.  It  was  a  body,  every  one  of  whose  members  sympathized  with 
the  other  members :  to  every  one  of  them  the  welfare  of  the  whole 
was  dear,  and  was  moreover  the  most  powerful  earthly  means  of  se- 
curing his  own  spiritual  progress.  The  various  generations  of  the 
Church  overlapped  one  another ;  her  various  parts  were  united  by 
the  most  loving  relation  and  the  most  active  intercourse ;  and  all  to- 
gether guarded  the  common  faith  with  a  keenness  of  interest  which 
has  not  been  surpassed  in  any  subsequent  age  of  the  Church's  history. 
Even  if  we  had  not  one  probable  reference  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  pre- 
vious to  A.D.  170,  we  should  be  entitled  to  ask  with  hardly  less  confi- 
dence than  we  may  ask  now :  How  did  this  book  find  its  way  into  the 
canon  as  the  Gospel  of  John  ?  How  is  it  that  the  moment  we  hear  of 
it,  we  hear  of  it  everywhere,  in  France,  Italy,  North  Africa,  Egj'pt, 
Syria  ?  No  sooner  do  the  sacred  documents  of  any  local  church  come 
to  light  than  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  among  them,  is  publicly  read  in  the 
congregations  of  the  faithful,  is  used  as  a  means  for  nourishing  the 
spiritual  life,  is  quoted  in  controversies  of  doctrine,  is  referred  to  in 
disputes  as  to  practice.  It  is  simply  an  impossibility  that  this  could 
have  taken  place  within  ten  or  thirty  years  after  some  single  congre- 
gation of  the  wide-spread  Church  had  accepted  it  from  the  hands  of 
an  unknown  individual  as  (whether  claiming  to  be  so  or  not)  the  pro- 
duction of  John  the  Apostle.  In  the  controversies  of  later  years  it 
seems  to  us  that  the  defenders  of  the  Gospel  have  failed  to  do  justice 
to  their  own  position.  They  have  not,  indeed,  paid  too  much  atten- 
tion to  objectors,  for  many  of  these  have  been  men  of  almost  unrivalled 
learning  and  of  a  noble  zeal  for  truth;  but,  by  occupying  themselves 
almost  entirely  with  answers  to  objections,  they  have  led  men  to  re- 
gard the  authenticity  of  the  Gospel  as  an  opinion  to  be  more  or  less 


INTRODUCTION. 


plausibly  defended,  rather  than  as  a  fact  which  rests  upon  that  unva- 
rying conviction  of  the  Church  which  is  the  strongest  of  all  evidence, 
and  the  falsehood  of  which  no  opponent  has  as  yet  been  able  to  demon- 
strate. Let  the  faith,  the  life,  the  controversies,  the  worship  of  the 
Church  about  A.  D.  170  be  first  accounted  for  without  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, and  it  will  then  be  more  reasonable  to  ask  us  to  admit  that  the 
small  number  of  allusions  to  it  in  the  literature  of  the  preceding  part 
of  the  century  is  a  proof  that  the  book  had  at  that  time  no  existence. 
Many  considerations,  however,  may  be  mentioned  to  explain  that 
paucity  of  quotation  and  allusion  upon  which  so  great  stress  is  laid. 
We  notice  only  two.  (1)  The  Fourth  Gospel  is  considerably  later  in 
date  than  the  other  three.  By  the  time  it  appeared  the  latter  were 
everywhere  circulated  and  appealed  to  in  the  Church.  They  had 
come  to  be  regarded  as  the  authoritative  exposition  of  the  life  of  the 
Redeemer.  It  could  not  be  easy  for  a  Gospel  so  different  from  them 
as  is  the  fourth  at  once  to  take  a  familiar  place  beside  them  in  the 
minds  of  men.  Writers  would  naturally  depend  upon  authorities  to 
which  they  had  been  accustomed,  and  to  which  they  knew  that  their 
readers  had  been  in  the  habit  of  deferring.  (2)  A  still  more  im- 
portant consideration  is  the  character  of  the  book  itself.  May  there 
not  be  good  reason  to  doubt  whether  the  Fourth  Gospel,  when  first 
issued,  would  not  be  regarded  as  a  theological  treatise  on  the  life  of 
Jesus  rather  than  as  a  simple  narrative  of  what  He  said  and  did  ?  It  is 
at  least  observable  that  when  Irenreus  comes  to  speak  of  it  he  de- 
scribes it  as  written  to  oppose  Cerinthus  and  the  Xicolaitanes  (Adv. 
Haer.  3:  11,  1)  ;  and  that  when  Clement  of  Alexandria  gives  his  ac- 
cou-nt  of  its  origin  he  describes  it  as  'a  spiritual  gospel'  written  in 
contrast  with  those  containing 'the  bodily  things '  (in  Euseb.  H.  E. 
6:  14).  It  may  be  difficult  to  determine  the  exact  meaning  of  'spirit- 
ual' here,  but  it  cannot  be  understood  to  express  the  divine  as  con- 
trasted with  the  human  in  .Jesus ;  and  it  appears  more  natural  to  think 
that  it  refers  to  the  inner  spirit  in  its  contrast  with  the  outward  fiicts 
of  His  life  as  a  whole.  If  so,  the  statement  seems  to  justify  the  infer- 
ence that  the  earlier  Gospels  had  been  considered  the  chief  storehouse 
of  information  with  regard  to  the  actual  events  of  the  Saviour's  his- 
tory. What  bears  even  more  upon  this  conclusion  is  the  manner  in 
which  Justin  speaks.  We  have  already  quoted  him  as  one  of  those 
to  whom  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  known,  yet  his  description  of  the  Sa- 
2 


INTRODUCTION. 


viour's  method  of  address  is  founded  upon  the  discourses  in  the  Sy- 
noptic Gospels,  quite  inapplicable  to  those  of  the  Fq^rth  {ApoL  1 : 
14).  Phenomena  such  as  these  make  it  probable  that  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  at  first  regarded  as  a  presentation  of  spiritual  truth  re- 
specting Jesus  rather  than  as  a  simple  narration  similar  to  those 
already  existing  in  the  Church :  and  if  so,  the  paucity  of  references 
to  it,  until  it  came  to  be  better  understood,  is  at  once  explained.  The 
suggestion  now  oflFered  finds  some  confirmation  in  a  fact  formerly 
mentioned,  that  the  Gospel  was  a  favorite  one  with  the  early  heretics. 
Containing  the  truth,  as  it  did,  in  a  form  in  some  degree  affected  by 
the  speculations  of  the  time  and  the  country  of  its  birth,  it  presented 
a  larger  number  of  points  of  contact  for  their  peculiar  systems  than 
the  earlier  Gospels.  In  it  they  found  many  a  hint  which  they  could 
easily  develop  and  misuse.  Its  profound  metaphysical  character  was 
exactly  suited  to  their  taste;  and  they  welcomed  the  opportunity,  as 
we  see  from  the  Refutations  of  Hippolytus  (Clark's  translation,  1  :  p. 
276),  of  appealing  to  so  important  and  authoritative  a  document  in 
favor  of  their  own  modes  of  thought.  But  this  very  circumstance 
must  have  operated  against  its  quick  and  general  reception  by  the 
Church.  The  tendency,  if  there  was  room  for  it  at  all,  would  be  to 
doubt  a  writing  in  which  systems  destructive  of  the  most  essential 
elements  of  Christianity  claimed  to  have  support;  and  it  helps  to 
deepen  our  sense  of  the  strength  of  the  Church's  conviction  of  the 
divine  origin  of  our  Gospel,  that,  in  spite  of  the  use  thus  made  of  it, 
she  clung  to  it  without  the  slightest  hesitation  and  with  unyielding 
tenacity. 

In  reviewing  the  first  seventy  years  of  the  second  century,  a  period 
at  the  end  of  which  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
generally  and  unhesitatingly  acknowledged  to  be  the  woi'k  of  John, 
we  can  trace  no  phenomena  inconsistent  with  such  a  conclusion.  No 
other  theory  gives  an  adequate  explanation  of  the  facts.  Unless, 
therefore,  the  structure  and  contents  of  the  Gospel  can  be  shown  to 
be  inconsistent  with  this  view,  we  ai'e  manifestly  bound  to  accept  the 
testimony  of  the  early  Church  as  worthy  of  our  confidence.  Accord- 
ing to  that  testimony  the  Gospel  was  written,  or  at  least  given  to  the 
Church  at  Ephesus,  towards  the  close  of  the  apostle's  life.  There  is 
nothing  to  determine  with  certainty  the  particular  date.  The  proba- 
bilities are  in  favor  of  fixing  it  about  a.  d.  90. 


INTRODUCTION. 


Turning  now  to  the  internal  character  of  the  Gospel,  we  shall  find 
that,  if  carefully  examined,  it  is  not  only  consistent  with,  but  strongly 
confirmatory  of,  the  Johannine  authorship, 

I.  The  author  was  unquestionably  a  Jew.  Some  most  marked  pecu- 
liarities of  the  Gospel,  such  as  its  artificial  arrangement  and  its  teach- 
ing by  symbolic  action  (points  of  which  we  have  yet  to  speak  more 
fully),  not  only  are  strictly  Jewish,  but  have  nothing  corresponding 
to  them  in  any  Gentile  writer  of  the  age.  Nor  does  this  book  contain 
one  word  to  suggest  the  inference  that  its  author,  originally  a  Gentile, 
might  have  acquired  his  Jewish  thoughts  and  style  by  having  become, 
before  his  conversion  to  Christianity,  a  proselj'te  to  Judaism.  To 
such  an  extent  do  these  features  permeate  the  Gospel,  that  they  can- 
not be  the  result  of  later  and  acquired  habits  of  thought.  They  are 
the  soul  of  the  writing.  They  are  interwoven  in  the  most  intimate 
manner  with  the  personality  of  the  writer.  They  must  have  grown 
with  his  growth  and  strengthened  with  his  strength  before  he  could 
be  so  entirely  moulded  by  them.  Nothing  shows  this  more  than  the 
relation  which  exists  in  the  Gospel  between  Christianity  and  Judaism. 
The  use  of  the  expression  'the  Jews,'  when  properly  understood, 
implies  the  very  contrary  of  what  it  is  so  often  adduced  to  establish. 
It  would  be  simply  a  waste  of  time  to  argue  that  our  Lord's  conflict 
with  '  the  Jews'  was  not  a  conflict  with  Judaism.  But,  this  being  so, 
the  use  of  the  expression  becomes  really  a  measure  of  the  writer's 
indignation  against  those  who,  having  been  appointed  the  guardians 
of  a  lofty  fixith,  had  dimmed,  defaced,  and  caricatured  it.  Such  ex- 
pressions as  'A  feast  of  the  Jews,'  'The  Passover  of  the  Jews,'  'The 
manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews,'  'The  Jews'  feast  of  Taberna- 
cles.' and  so  on,  not  only  could  well  be  used  by  a  writer  of  Jewish 
birth,  but  are  even  consistent  with  true  admiration  of  the  things  them- 
selves when  conformed  to  their  ideal.  He  has  in  view  institutions  as 
perverted  by  man,  not  as  appointed  by  the  Almighty.  He  sees  them  ob- 
served and  urged  by  their  defenders  for  the  sake  of  their  own  selfish 
interests,  made  instruments  of  defeating  the  very  end  for  which  they  had 
been  originally  given,  used  to  deepen  the  darkness  rather  than  to  lead 
to  the  coming  light.  He  sees  that  that  stage  in  the  history  of  a  faith 
has  been  reached  when  the  form  has  so  completely  taken  the  place  of 
the  substance,  the  letter  of  the  spirit,  that  to  revivify  the  former  is 
impossible :  it  must  perish  if  the  latter  is  to  be  saved.     He  sees  the 


INTRODUCTION. 


spirituality  of  religion  crushed,  extinguished,  in  the  very  moulds 
■which  had  for  a  time  preserved  it.  Therefore  he  might  well  say, 
Their  work  is  done:  God's  plan  is  accomplished:  they  must  perish. 
In  all  this  there  is  no  antagonism  to  true  Judaism.  No  Gentile  author- 
ship is  before  us.  The  thought  belongs  to  a  diiferent  training  and  a 
difierent  race;  and  that,  too,  at  a  time  when  Judaism  must  have  pos- 
sessed much  of  its  former  interest,  when  the  echoes  of  its  greatness 
had  not  yet  passed  away. 

The  same  thing  appears  in  the  relation  of  the  writer  to  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  They  are  quoted  with  great  frequency,  and  it 
is  well  worthy  of  notice  that  the  quotations  are  not  simply  taken  from 
the  Septuagint.  They  are  at  times  from  the  Hebrew  where  it  differs 
from  the  Septuagint;  at  times  the  translation  is  original  (comp.  chaps. 
2:  17;  12:  40;  19:  37;  13:  18).  Nothing  leads  more  directly  than 
this  to  the  thought  not  only  of  Jewish  birth,  but  also  of  long  fami- 
liarity with  Jewish  worship  in  Palestine.  In  all  the  provinces  at 
least  of  the  Western  Diaspora,  the  service  of  the  synagogue  was  con- 
ducted not  in  Hebrew,  but  in  Greek,  by  means  of  the  Septuagint. 
To  Gentiles  of  all  conditions  of  life,  and  similarly  to  Jews  of  the  Dis- 
persion, with  the  exception  of  a  very  few,  the  Hebrew  Scriptures 
were,  even  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  certainly  at  a  later  date,  utterly 
unknown.  To  think  of  a  Gentile  Christian  of  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century,  whether  a  native  of  Alexandria  or  of  Asia  Minor,  as 
able  to  translate  for  himself,  is  to  suppose  a  state  of  things  of  which 
no  other  illustration  can  be  adduced,  and  which  is  at  variance  with 
all  our  knowledge  of  the  time. 

The  same  conclusion  is  to  be  deduced  from  the  Hebraic  style  of  the 
book.  This  character  of  its  style  is  now  generally  recognized.  But 
the  fact  is  of  such  interest  and  importance,  yet  at  the  same  time  so 
dependent  upon  a  skilled  and  delicate  acquaintance  with  both  Hebrew 
and  Greek,  that  instead  of  quoting  examples  which  the  English  reader 
would  hardly  understand,  we  shall  refer  to  two,  out  of  many,  state- 
ments from  writers  whose  authority  on  such  a  point  none  will  ques- 
tion. It  is  thus  that  Dr.  Keim  [the  author  of  a  very  able  and  learned 
Life  of  Jesus]  speaks :  '  The  style  of  the  book  is  a  remarkable  combi- 
nation of  a  facility  and  skill  essentially  Greek,,  with  a  form  of  expres- 
sion that  is  truly  Hebrew  in  its  complete  simplicity,  childlikeness, 
picturesqueness,  and  in  some  sense  guilelessness.'  *  To  a  similar 
*  Jesus  von  Nazara,  i.,  p.  157. 


INTRODUCTION. 


eflFect  Ewald  [the  greatest  Hebrew  scholar  of  the  nineteenth  century]  : 
'  It  is  well  worthy  of  our  observation  that  the  Greek  language  of  our 
author  bears  the  clearest  and  strongest  marks  of  a  genuine  Hebrew 
who,  born  among  Jews  in  the  Holy  Land,  and  having  grown  up  among 
them,  had  learned  the  Greek  language  in  later  life,  but  still  exhibits 
in  the  midst  of  it  the  whole  spirit  and  air  of  his  mother  tongue.  He  has 
constructed  a  Greek  tongue  to  which  nothing  corresponds  in  the  other 
writings  that  have  come  down  to  us  marked  by  a  Hellenistic  tinge.'  ^ 

2.  The  author  heloiiged  to  Palestine.  He  is  alive  to  all  the  geographi- 
cal, ecclesiastical,  and  political  relations  of  the  land.  He  speaks  of 
its  provinces — .Judasa,  Samaria,  and  Galilee.  He  is  familiar  with  its 
towns  —  Jerusalem,  Bethany,  Sychar,  Cana,  Nazareth,  Capernaum, 
Bethsaida,  Tiberias,  Ephraim ;  and  not  less  so  with  its  river  Jordan 
and  its  winter-torrent  Kedron.  The  general  character  of  the  country 
is  known  to  him,  the  different  routes  from  Judaea  into  Galilee  (chap. 
4:  4),  the  breadth  of  the  sea  of  Galilee  (chap.  6:  19;  comp.  Mark  6: 
47),  the  lie  of  the  road  from  Cana  to  Capernaum  (chap.  2:  12),  the 
exact  distance  between  Jerusalem  and  Bethany  (chap.  11 :  18).  The 
situation  of  particular  spots  is  even  fixed  with  great  distinctness,  such 
as  of  Jacob's  well  in  chap.  4,  of  Bethesda  in  chap.  5,  and  of  Cana  in 
chap.  2. 

Similar  remarks  apply  to  his  acquaintance  with  the  ecclesiastical 
and  political  circumstances  of  the  time.  It  is  not  possible  to  illustrate 
this  by  details.  We  add  only  that  all  his  allusions  to  such  points  as 
we  have  now  noticed  are  made,  not  with  the  labored  care  of  one  who 
has  mastered  the  subject  by  study,  but  with  the  simplicity  and  ease 
of  one  to  whom  it  is  so  familiar  that  what  he  says  is  uttered  in  the 
most  incidental  manner.  Where  did  he  obtain  his  information  ?  Not 
from  the  Old  Testament,  for  it  is  not  there.  Not  from  the  earlier 
Gospels,  for  they  afford  but  little  of  it.  Surely  not  from  that  second 
century  which,  according  to  the  statement  of  objectors,  left  him  in 
the  belief  that  appointment  to  the  high-priesthood  was  an  annual 
thing !  One  source  of  knowledge  alone  meets  the  demands  of  the 
case.     The  writer  was  not  only  a  Jew,  but  a  Jew  of  Palestine. 

3.  The  author  was  an  eye-tcitness  of  ichat  he  relates.  We  have  his 
own  explicit  statement  upon  the  point  in  chap.  1:  14  and  chap.  19:  35 


*  Die  Johann.  Sckriften,  i.,  p.  44. 


INTRODUCTION. 


(see  the  Commentary).  Upon  this  last  verse  we  only  call  attention 
now  to  the  distinction,  so  often  overlooked,  between  the  two  adjec- 
tives of  the  original,  both  translated  'true'  in  the  Authorized  Version, 
but  wholly  different  in  meaning.  The  first  does  not  express  the  truth 
of  the  fact  at  all,  but  sets  forth  the  fact  as  one  in  regard  to  which  the 
witness  was  not,  and  cannot  have  been,  mistaken  :  his  testimony  is 
all  that  testimony  can  be.  The  moment  we  give  its  due  weight  to  this 
consideration,  we  are  compelled  to  admit  that  'he  that  hath  seen  hath 
borne  witness,  and  his  witnesss  is  true,'  can  refer  to  no  other  than 
the  writer  of  the  words.  He  could  not  have  thus  alleged  of  another 
that  his  testimony  was  thoroughly  true  and  perfect — that  it  was  the 
exact  expression  of  the  incident  which  had  taken  place.  What  he 
himself  has  seen  is  the  only  foundation  of  such  a  'witness'  as  that 
which  he  would  give. 

The  statements  thus  made  are  confirmed  by  the  general  nature  of 
the  work.  There  is  a  graphic  power  throughout  the  whole,  a  liveli- 
ness and  picturesqueness  of  description,  which  constrain  us  to  believe 
that  we  are  listening  to  the  narrative  of  an  eye-witness.  There  is  a 
delicacy  in  the  bringing  out  of  individual  character  (as  in  the  case  of 
Martha  and  Mary  in  chap.  11)  which  even  the  literary  art  of  the 
present  day  could  hardly  equal.  And  there  is  a  minuteness  of  detail, 
different  from  that  of  the  earlier  Gospels,  for  whose  presence  it  is 
altogetli^r  impossible  to  account  unless  it  was  suggested  by  the  facts. 
If  the  trial  before  Pilate  is  an  imaginary  scene,  there  is  nothing  in  all 
the  remains  of  Greek  antiquity  to  compare  with  it. 

4.  The  author,  if  an  eye-witness  and  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  could  be  no 
other  than  the  Apostle  John.  We  have  already  seen  that  he  calls  him- 
self 'the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.'  But  from  such  passages  as 
chaps.  13 :  23 ;  19 :  26,  we  infer  that  the  disciple  so  peculiarly  favored 
must  have  been  one  of  those  admitted  to  the  most  intimate  communion 
with  Jesus.  These  were  only  three,  Peter,  James  and  John.  One  of 
these  three,  therefore,  he  must  have  been.  He  was  not  Peter,  for 
that  apostle  is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  Gospel  by  his  own  name, 
and  is  on  several  occasions  expressly  distinguished  from  '  the  disciple 
whom  Jesus  loved'  (chaps.  13:  24;  21:  7,  20).  Neither  was  he 
James,  for  that  apostle  was  put  to  deatJi  by  Herod  at  a  date  long  an- 
terior to  any  at  which  our  Gospel  can  have  been  composed  (Acts  12 : 
2).     He  could  therefore  only  be  John. 


INTRODUCTION.  xxiii 


Internal  evidence  thus  lends  its  force  to  the  external  for  the  con- 
clusion that  we  advocate.  That  there  are  no  difficulties  in  the  matter, 
or  that  they  are  slight,  it  would  be  foolish  to  allege.  They  are  both 
numerous  and  weighty.  But  it  seems  to  us  that  they  are  connected 
less  with  the  actual  state  of  the  evidence  than  with  the  fact  that  the 
true  character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has  usually  been  overlooked  by 
tliose  who,  in  this  country  at  least,  have  defended  its  authenticity. 
In  this  respect  we  owe  much  to  the  very  continental  scholai-s  who 
have  been  most  unfriendly  to  its  apostolic  origin.  None  have  con- 
tributed so  greatly  to  unfold  its  true  character;  and,  in  doing  so, 
they  have  helped  mo-t  powerfully,  however  unconsciously,  to  answer 
their  own  objections  to  the  Johannine  authorship.  That  authorship 
there  is  no  reasonable  ground  to  doubt. 

III.    OBJECT    OF   THE    GOSPEL. 

The  Gospel  of  John  is  the  production  of  that  apostle  who,  of  all  the 
apostolic  band,  had  been  most  closely  and  tenderly  associated  with 
their  common  Master.     Why  was  it  written  ? 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  mention  some  of  the  early  tes- 
timonies bearing  upon  this  point.     We  must  now  refer  to  them  again. 

Eusebius  quotes  Qement  of  Alexandria  as  saying  that  '  John,  the 
last  of  the  Apostles,  perceiving  that  the  bodily  things  (of  Jesus)  had 
been  made  known  in  the  Gospels,  and  being  at  the  same  time  urged 
by  his  friends,  and  borne  along  by  the  Spirit,  wrote  a  spiritual  Gospel.' 
And  a  still  earlier  authority  (the  Muratorian  Fragment)  so  far  agrees 
with  this  as  to  tell  us  that  'when  John's  fellow-disciples  and  bishops 
exhorted  him  he  said.  Fast  along  with  me  three  days  from  to-day, 
and  let  us  relate  the  one  to  the  other  whatever  has  been  revealed  to 
us.  The  same  night  it  was  revealed  to  Andrew  the  Apostle  that  .John 
should  m  his  own  name  write  down  the  whole,  and  that  they  all  ' 
should  revise  (what  he  wrote).'  The  two  accounts,  while  obviously 
independent,  bear  witness  to  the  same  view  of  the  origin  of  our  Gos- 
pel. The  friends  of  the  Apostle-how  impossible  that  it  should  be 
otherwise  !-had  often  heard  him  relate  much  that  was  not  found  in 
the  Gospels  already  in  existence.  They  urged  him  to  put  it  in  writ- 
ing, and  he  complied  with  their  request.  In  other  words,  the  Fourth 
Gospel  was  written  as  a  supplement  to  its  predecessors.  Up  to  a  cer- 
tain point  the  idea  may  be  accepted  ;  but  that  John  wrote  mainly  for 


INTRODUCTION. 


the  purpose  of  supplying  things  wanting  in  the  Synoptic  narrative  is  a 
theory  inconsistent  with  the  whole  tone  of  his  composition.  His  woi'k 
is  from  tirst  to  last  an  original  conception,  distinguished  from  previous 
Gospels  alike  in  the  form  and  in  the  substance  of  its  delineation,  pro- 
ceeding upon  a  plan  of  its  own  clearly  laid  down  and  consistently  fol- 
lowed out,  and  presenting  an  aspect  of  the  person  and  teaching  of 
Jesus  which,  if  not  entirely  new,  is  set  before  us  with  a  fulness 
which  really  makes  it  so.  It  is  one  burst  of  sustained  and  deep  ap- 
preciation of  what  its  writer  would  unfold,  the  picture  of  one  who 
paints  not  because  others  have  foiled  to  ca,tch  the  ideal  he  would  re- 
present, but  because  his  heart  is  full  and  he  must  speak. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  was  the  opinion  of  Ireneeus  that  John  wrote 
to  controvert  the  errors  of  the  Nicolaitanes  and  Cerinthus ;  in  other 
words,  that  his  aim  was  not  so  much  supplementary  sxs  polemical.  Up 
to  a  certain  point,  again,  the  idea  may  be  accepted ;  but  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  believe  that  it  affords  us  the  whole,  or  even  the  main  explana- 
tion of  his  work.  His  presentation  of  Jesus  might  no  doubt  be 
moulded  by  the  tone  of  thought  around  him,  because  he  had  himself 
been  moulded  by  it.  Yet  he  starts  from  a  positive,  not  from  a  con- 
troversial point  of  view.  Filled  with  his  subject,  he  is  impelled  to  set 
it  forth  without  turning  aside  to  show,  as  a  controversialist  would 
have  done,  that  it  met  the  deficiencies  or  errors  of  his  age.  Upon 
these  he  makes  no  direct  attack.  It  may  be  in  the  light  of  the  present 
that  the  truth  shapes  itself  to  his  mind  ;  yet  he  writes  as  one  whose 
main  business  is  not  to  controvert  the  present  but  to  revivify  the  past. 

Neither  of  these  statements,  then,  explains  the  Apostle's  aim.  He 
has  himself  given  the  explanation,  and  that  so  clearly  that  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  account  for  the  differences  of  opinion  that  have  been  enter- 
tained. His  statement  is,  '  Many  other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in 
the  presence  of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written  in  this  book :  but 
these  are  wi'itten,  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  His  name'  (chap. 
20:  30,  31).  Almost  every  word  of  this  statement  is  of  the  utmost 
importance  for  the  point  before  us.  But,  referring  for  fuller  exposi- 
tion to  the  Commentary,  we  now  only  remark  that  John  is  not  to  be 
understood  as  meaning  that  the  Gospel  was  written  in  order  that  its 
readers  might  be  led  to  acknowledge  the  Divine  mission  of  Jesus, 
when  they  beheld  the  works  wrought  by  Him  in  more  than  human 


INTRODUCTION. 


power.  These  readers  were  already  believers,  discij)les,  friends. 
AVliat  was  wanted  was  not  the  first  furmation  but  the  deepening  of 
faith  Avithin  them,  so  that  they  might  reach  a  profounder  appreciation 
of  the  true  character  of  Jesus,  a  more  intimate  communion  with  Him 
and  in  Him  with  the  Father,  and  thus  also  a  richer  and  more  abun- 
dant spiritual  life  (comp.  chap.  10:  lOj. 

The  conclusion  now  reached  will  be  strengthened  if  we  observe  that, 
with  a  characteristically  firm  grasp  of  his  materials,  and  with  that  re- 
markable unity  of  plan  which  distinguishes  the  Gospel,  John  mani- 
fests the  same  intention  at  the  first  appearance  of  the  Redeemer  in  his 
history.  In  his  first  chapter  we  read  of  three,  Andrew,  Philip,  and 
Nathanael,  who,  having  been  brought  face  to  face  with  Jesus,  make 
confession  of  their  faith.  It  is  impossible  to  overlook  the  parallelism 
between  this  paragraph  and  chap.  20:  30,  31.  The  three  disciples 
bear  witness  to  the  three  aspects  of  the  Saviour  brought  before  us  in 
the  Evangelist's  own  summary  of  his  work — 'Jesus,'  'the  Christ,' 
'  the  Son  of  God.'  The  similarity  is  an  important  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  that  summary  is  not  one  for  which  he  might  have  substituted 
another,  but  that  it  is  the  calm,  self-possessed  utterance  of  a  writer 
who  had  from  the  first  a  clear  perception  of  the  end  which  he  kept  in 
view  throughout. 

To  the  question,  therefore,  "Why  did  John  write  ?  we  may  now 
reply :  He  wrote  in  order  to  present  to  believing  men  a  revelation  of 
the  Divine  Son  which  might  deepen,  enlarge,  perfect  their  faith,  and 
which,  by  bringing  them  into  closer  spiritual  communion  with  the 
Son,  might  make  them  also  in  Him  spiritually  sons  of  God.  He  wrote 
to  exhibit,  in  the  actual  fiicts  of  the  life  of  the  'Word  become  flesh,' 
the  glory  of  that  union  wliich  had  been  established  in  His  person  be- 
tween the  Divine  and  the  human.  He  wrote  to  be  a  witness  to  tlie 
heart  of  One  who  is  in  His  people,  and  in  whom  the  Father  abides 
(chaps.  14:  10;   17:  23). 

ir.    CnAKACTERISTlCS    OF    THE    GOSPEL. 

Having  thus  ascei'tained  the  purpose  with  whicli  the  Fourth  Gospel 
was  written,  we  shall  now  be  better  able  to  appreciate  some  of  those 
characteristics  which  have  furnished  opponents  with  many  plausible 
ohjections,  and  have  occasioned  no  small  perplexity  to  friends.  Of 
these  the  following  seem  to  deserve  notice,  either  as  being  in  them- 


INTRODUCTION. 


selves  the  most  important,  or  as  being  fi-equently  made  use  of  in  this 
Commentary : — 

(1).  The  selective  principle  upon  which  the  Evangelist  proceeds.  No 
historian  can  mention  ail  the  particulars  of  any  whole  life,  or  even  of 
any  single  event  that  he  records.  To  a  certain  extent  he  is  bound  to 
select  those  which,  from  whatever  cause,  strike  him  most  or  seem  to 
bear  most  closely  on  his  purpose.  But  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel gives  many  proofs  that  he  not  only  carries  this  principle  to  an  unu- 
sual extent,  but  does  it  deliberately  and  on  purpose.  The  incidents 
looked  at  as  a  whole  will  in  part  illustrate  what  we  say.  That  these 
should  constitute  a  group  so  diiferent  from  what  we  have  in  the  earlier 
Gospels  is  often  urged  as  an  objection  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
Fourth.  Those  indeed  who  make  the  objection  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
that  there  is  selection  of  incidents  as  truly  in  the  former  a«  in  the 
latter.  The  difference  between  the  two  cases  lies  less  in  the  extent  to 
which  selection  is  carried,  than  to  a  degree  of  consciousness  with  which 
the  principle  is  applied.  In  the  Synoptic  Gospels  it  is  less  easy  to 
trace  the  hand  of  the  writer  as  he  puts  aside  what  does  not  appear  to 
him  to  bear  upon  his  subject,  or  as  he  brings  into  prominence  what 
has  direct  relation  to  his  aim.  Abstaining,  however,  from  any  com- 
parison between  our  two  groups  of  authorities,  and  confining  our- 
selves to  the  Fourth  Gospel,  we  rather  notice  that  the  selection  of  its 
incidents  in  general  is  determined  by  the  ideas  to  which  expression  is 
given  in  the  Prologue.  It  is  not  through  forgetfulness  or  ignorance 
of  other  incidents  that  the  writer  confines  our  attention  to  a  selected 
few  (comp.  21:  25),  but  through  his  conviction  that  no  others  will 
as  well  subserve  the  end  that  he  has  in  view.  Hence,  accordingly, 
the  space  devoted  to  the  discourses  with  'the  Jews,'  which  are  not 
those  of  a  mild  and  gentle  teacher,  but  of  one  who  is  in  conflict  with 
bitter  and  determined  foes,  of  one  whose  business  it  is  to  confute,  to 
convict,  and  to  condemn.  No  one,  giving  heed  to  the  state  of  Jewish 
feeling  at  the  time,  can  doubt  that  these  discourses  in  their  general 
strain  have  all  the  verisimilitude  that  outward  evidence  can  lend  to 
them, — that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  must  have  been  a  struggle,  and  in 
precisely  this  direction.  The  conflict  between  light  and  darkness  be- 
came thus  to  John  a  leading  idea  of  the  history  of  his  Master.  The 
thought  finds  expression  in  the  Prologue  (1 :  5-11),  and  the  discourses 
which  illustrate  it  naturally  follow.     It  is  not  otherwise  with  the  mi- 


INTRODUCTION. 


racles.  He  invariably  styles  these  'signs,'  a  word  in  itself  showing 
that  they  are  outward  acts  expressive  of  a  hidden  meaning  from  which 
they  derive  their  chief  importance.  Why,  then,  does  he  give  them  as 
he  does  ?  Because,  looking  over  the  whole  manifestation  of  Jesus,  he 
had  been  taught  to  find  in  Him  the  fulfilment  of  'grace  and  truth' 
Tyhich  had  not  been  given  in  the  law, — the  perfect  Light,  the  present 
and  eternal  Life,  of  men.  ,He  presents  these  ideas  in  the  Prologue 
(1 :  4,  5,  9,  17),  and  the  selection  given  of  the  miracles  naturally  fol- 
lows. 

The  point  now  before  us  may  be  illustrated,  not  only  by  the  inci- 
dents of  the  Gospel  looked  at  thus  generally,  but  by  smaller  and  more 
minute  particulars.  Many  of  these,  however,  will  be  noticed  in  the 
Commentary  (see,  for  example,  the  note  on  9  :  6),  and  we  shall  not 
occupy  time  with  them  now.  The  point  to  be  borne  in  mind  by  the 
reader  is,  that  in  the  Gospel  of  John  there  is  no  attempt  to  give  the 
historical  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus  in  all  their  particulars.  There  is 
throughout  conscious  and  intentional  selection.  From  what  he  has 
seen,  the  writer  has  attained  a  particular  idea  of  the  Person,  the  Life, 
the  Work  of  his  Divine  Master.  He  will  present  that  idea  to  the 
world ;  and  knowing  that,  if  all  the  things  that  Jesus  did  were  to  be 
written  down,  '  the  world  itself  would  not  contain  the  books  that 
should  be  written,'  he  makes  choice  of  that  which  will  most  fitly 
answer  the  appointed  end. 

(2.)  The  symbolic  method  of  treatment  which  the  Evangelist  exhibits. 
This  is  so  peculiarly  characteristic  of  John,  and  has  at  the  same  time 
■  been  so  much  disregarded  by  most  modern  commentators,  that  one  or 
two  general  remarks  upon  teaching  by  symbols  seemed  to  be  required. 
The  Old  Testament  is  full  of  it.  All  the  arrangements  of  the  taber- 
nacle, for  example ;  its  courts,  the  furniture  of  its  courts,  the  cere- 
monial observances  performed  in  it,  the  very  dyes  and  colors  used  in 
the  construction  of  its  wrappings,  have  an  appropriate  meaning  only 
when  we  behold  in  them  the  expression  of  spiritual  truths  relating  to 
God  and  to  His  worship.  More  especially  it  would  seem  to  have  been 
a  part  of  the  prophet! s  task  thus  to  present  truth  to  those  whom  he 
was  commissioned  to  instruct ;  and  the  higher  the  prophetic  influence 
which  moved  him,  the  more  powerful  his  impression  of  the  message 
given  him  to  proclaim,  the  more  entirely  he  was  borne  along  by  the 
divine  afilatus,  the  more  did  he  resort  to  it.     As  simple  illustrations 


INTRODUCTION 


of  this  we  may  refer  to  the  cases  of  Zedekiah,  Elisha,  Jeremiah  and 
Ezekiel  (1  Kings  22:  11 ;  2  Kings  13  :  17;  Jer.  27:  1-18;  Ezek.  4: 
1-6). 

If  it  was  thus  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  there  is  not 
only  no  reason  why  we  ought  not  to  expect  symbolism  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  every  reason  to  the  contrary.  The  narrative  of  Aga- 
bus  shows  that  in  the  apostolic  age  symbolic  action  was  still  a  part  of 
the  prophetic  function  appreciated  by  the  Jews  (Acts  21 :  11).  What 
wonder,  then,  if  our  Lord  should  teach  by  symbolism  as  well  as  by 
direct  instruction  ?  He  was  the  fulfilment  not  only  of  Israel's  priestly, 
but  also  of  its  prophetic  line.  He  was  the  true  and  great  Prophet  in 
whom  the  idea  and  mission  of  prophecy  culminated ;  in  whom  all  that 
marked  the  prophet  as  known  and  honored  in  Israel  attained  its  high- 
est development  and  reached  perfect  ripeness.  Besides  this.  His  eye 
saw,  as  no  merely  human  eye  ever  did,  the  unity  that  lies  at  the  bot- 
tom of  all  existence,  the  principles  of  harmony  that  bind  together  the 
world  of  nature  and  of  man,  so  that  the  former  becomes  the  type  and 
shadow  of  the  latter.  When,  accordingly.  He  appeared  as  the  great 
Prophet  of  Israel,  there  is  nothing  unreasonable  in  the  supposition 
that  He  would  teach  by  symbol  as  well  as  word,  that  not  only  His 
words  but  His  acts  should  be  designed  by  Him  to  be  lessons  to  the 
people,  illustrations  of  the  nature  of  His  kingdom  and  His  work. 

Still  further,  we  cannot  forget  the  general  character  of  all  the  words 
and  actions  of  our  Lord.  As  coming  from  Him,  they  possess  a  fulness 
of  meaning  which  we  should  not  have  been  justified  in  ascribing  to 
them  had  they  come  from  another  teacher.  It  is  impossible  to  doubt 
that  He  mw  all  the  truths  which  find  a  legitimate  expression  in  what 
He  said  or  did,  however  various  the  sphere  of  life  to  which  they  apply. 
And  it  is  equally" impossible  to  doubt  that  He  intended  to  utter  what 
He  saw. 

But  if  Jesus  might  thus  teach,  a  disciple  and  historian  of  His  life 
might  apprehend  this  characteristic  of  His  teaching, — nay,  would 
apprehend  it,  the  more  he  entered  into  the  spirit  of  his  master.  There 
are  clear  indications  of  this,  accordingly,  even  in  the  earlier  Gospels. 
The  account  of  the  miraculous  draught  of  fishes,  at  the  time  when 
Simon  and  Andrew  were  called  to  the  apostleship  (Luke  5 :  3-10),  the 
cursing  of  the  barren  fig-tree  (Matt.  21 :  18-20  ;  Mark  11 :  12-14),  the 
double  miracle  of  the  multiplying  of  the  bread  (Matt.  14 :  15-21 ;  15: 


INTRODUCTION.  xxix 


32-38  ;  Mark  6  :  34-44  ;  8  :  1-9),  afford  clear  illustrations  of  this  prin- 
ciple. It  is  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  however,  that  the  symbolic  spirit 
particularly  appears;  and  that  not  merely  in  the  miracles,  but  in 
lengthened  narratives,  and  in  many  separate  figures  supplied  by  the 
Old  Testament,  by  nature,  or  by  incidents  occurring  at  the  moment. 
To  the  eye  of  the  Evangelist  the  whole  of  creation  waits  for  redemp- 
tion ;  the  whole  of  history  reaches  forth  to  Him  '  that  was  to  come ;' 
the  heart  of  man  in  all  its  stirrings  seeks  to  grasp  a  reality  to  be  found 
nowhere  but  in  the  revelation  of  the  Father  given  in  the  Son.  Every- 
thing, in  short,  has  stamped  upon  it  a  shadowy  outline  of  what  is  to 
be  filled  up  when  redemption  is  complete.  The  Logos,  the  Word,  is 
the  source  of  all  that  exists  (chap.  1:3),  and  to  the  source  from  which 
it  came  will  all  that  exists  return.  Every  chapter  of  the  Gospel  would 
furnish  illustration  of  what  has  been  said. 

It  is  impossible,  however,  to  rest  here ;  for  this  power  of  perceiving 
in  outward  things  symbols  of  inner  truths  may  be  so  strong  as  to 
appear  in  the  mode  of  presenting  not  only  the  larger  but  also  the 
smaller  circumstances  of  any  scene  in  which  Jesus  moves.  The 
greater  may  draw  along  with  it  a  symbolic  interpretation  of  the  less. 
Nay,  out  of  numerous  little  details  the  mind  which  is  quick  to  discern 
symbolic  teaching  may  really  select  some  in  preference  to  others,  be- 
cause in  them  the  impress  of  the  symbolism  may  be  more  clearly 
traced.  A  writer  may  thus  act  without  any  thought  of  art  or  special 
design,  even  to  a  great  degree  unconscious  of  what  he  does,  and 
simply  because  the  higher  object  with  which  he  has  been  engaged 
has  a  natural  power  to  attract  to  itself,  and  to  involve  in  its  sweep  the 
lower  objects  within  its  range.  Illustrations  of  this  will  be  found  in 
the  Commentary. 

(3.)  The  peculiar  nature  of  the  plan  adopted  by  the  Evangelist.  The 
Gospel  appears  to  us  most  naturally  to  divide  itself  into  seven  sec- 
tions, as  follows : — 

1.  The  Prologue:  chap.  1 :  1-18.  These  verses  contain  a  summary  of 
the  great  facts  of  the  whole  Gospel,  grouped  in  accordance  with  the 
Evangelist's  purpose,  and  presented  in  the  light  in  which  he  would 
have  them  viewed. 

2.  The  presentation  of  Jesus  upon  the  field  of  human  history:  chap. 
1  :  19-2  :  11.  Here  Jesus  appears  before  us  as  He  is  in  Himself,  the 
Son  of  God,  and  as  He  manifests  Himself  to  His  disciples  before  He 
begins  His  conflict  in  the  world. 


INTRODUCTION. 


3.  General  sketch  of  the  work  of  Jesus  in  the  world:  chap.  2:  12- 
4:  54.  Jesus  passes  beyond  the  circle  of  the  disciples,  and  is  rejected 
by  the  Jews  when  he  would  cleanse  the  house  of  His  Father  at  Jeru- 
salem. This  leads  to  His  revelation  of  Himself  as  the  true  temple 
"which,  destroyed  by  'the  Jews'  in  their  persecution  of  Him  even 
unto  death,  shall  be  raised  again  in  His  resurrection.  Thus  rejected 
by  the  representatives  of  the  theocracy,  He  reveals  Himself  by  His 
word  to  individuals  who,  whether  of  Judea,  or  Samaria,  or  Galilee  of 
the  nations,  are— not  by  signs  but  by  His  word — subdued  to  faith. 

4.  The  conflict  of  Jesus  with  the  world,  chap.  5:  1-12:  50.  This 
section  contains  the  main  body  of  the  Gospel,  setting  Jesus  forth  in 
the  height  of  His  conflict  with  darkness,  error,  and  sin.  He  comes 
before  us  throughout  in  all  the  aspects  in  which  we  have  in  the  Pro- 
logue been  taught  to  behold  Him,  and  He  carries  on  the  work  there 
spoken  of  as  given  Him  to  do.  He  is  Son  of  God,  and  Son  of  man, 
the  Fulfiller  of  the  greatest  ordinances  of  the  law,  the  Life  and  the 
Light  of  men.  As  lie  contends  with  the  world,  now  in  one  and  now 
in  another  of  these  manifestations  of  Himself,  faith  or  unbelief  is 
gradually  developed  and  deepened  in  those  who  listen  to  Him.  The 
believing  and  obedient  are  more  and  more  attracted,  the  disobedient 
and  unbelieving  are  more  and  more  repelled,  by  His  words  and  ac- 
tions, until  at  last  we  hear,  in  the  closing  verses  of  chap.  12,  the 
mournful  echo  of  *  He  came  unto  His  own,  and  His  own  received  Him 
not.'  He  has  gathered  His  disciples  to  Himself.  The  darkness  has 
not  overcome  Him  (comp.  chap.  1 :  5).  He  passes  victorious  through 
its  opposition ;  but  His  victory  is  not  yet  complete. 

5.  The  revelation  of  Jesus  to  His  own,  together  with  the  rest  and 
peace  and  joy  of  faith:  chap.  13:  1-17:26.  The  conflict  of  the 
previous  section  has  divided  men  into  the  two  great  companies  of  faith 
and  unbelief.  These  two  companies  are  now  to  be  followed,  the  one 
to  its  blessed  rest  in  Him  whom  it  has  received,  the  other  to  those  last 
steps  in  sin  which,  in  the  hour  of  apparent  victory,  really  secure  its 
final  and  ignominious  defeat.  The  rest  of  faith  is  traced  in  ihe  sec- 
tion now  before  us.  The  world  is  shut  out  from  the  sacred  and  tender 
fellowship  of  Jesus  with  His  own.  Judas  leaves  the  company  of  the 
disciples  (13:  30).  The  rest  of  the  disciples  are  'clean;'  not  only 
bathed,  but  with  their  feet  afterwards  washed,  so  that  they  are  'clean 
every  whit'  (13:  10),  and  Jesus  is  alone  with  them.     Therefore  He, 


INTRODUCTION. 


pours  forth  upon  them  all  the  fulness  of  His  love.  His  glory — the 
glory  of  'grace  and  truth' — shines  forth  in  all  the  inexpressible  ten- 
derness of  the  foot-washing,  of  the  last  discourse,  and  of  the  inter- 
cessory prayer. 

6.  The  apparent  victory  but  the  real  defeat  of  unbelief:  18  :  1-20  : 
31.  At  first  sight  it  may  be  thought  that  chap.  20  as  containing  the 
account  of  the  Resurrection,  ought  to  constitute  a  separate  section ; 
but  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  a  proper  comprehension  of  the 
plan  of  the  Evangelist  to  observe  that  this  cannot  be.  The  Death  and 
Resurrection  of  Jesus  are  in  this  Gospel  always  united,  and  cannot  be 
separated  in  our  thought ;  the  Redeemer  with  whom  we  have  to  do  is 
One  who  rises  through  suffering  to  victory,  through  death  to  life 
(comp.  remarks  on  the  contents  of  chap.  20).  Even  the  prominent 
thought  of  chap.  19  is  not  Jesus  in  humiliation,  but  Jesus  'lifted  on 
high,'  rising  triumphant  above  the  humiliation  to  which  He  is  sub- 
jected, with  a  glory  which  appears  the  brighter  the  thicker  the  dark- 
ness that  surrounds  it.  But  this  is  exactly  the  thought  of  chap.  20  ; 
and  the  two  chapters  cannot  be  kept  distinct.  Thus  viewed,  we  see  in 
the  section  as  a  whole  the  apparent  victory,  but  the  real  defeat  of  un- 
belief. The  enemies  of  Jesus  seem  to  prevail.  They  seize  Him ;  they 
bind  Him ;  they  lead  Him  before  Annas  and  Caiaphas  and  Pilate ;  they 
nail  Him  to  the  cross ;  He  dies  and  is  buried.  But  their  victory  is 
only  on  the  surface.*  Jesus  Himself  gives  Himself  up  to  the  traitor 
and  his  band ;  oflFers  no  resistance  to  the  binding ;  shows  the  infinite 
superiority  of  His  spirit  to  that  of  the  high  priest;  compels  the 
homage  of  Pilate;  voluntarily  surrenders  His  life  upon  the  cross;  has 
the  mocking  of  His  enemies  turned,  under  the  providence  of  God,  to 
their  discomfiture  and  shame;  and  at  last,  rising  from  the  grave, 
establishes  the  completeness  of  His  victory  when  His  enemies  have 
done  their  worst.  In  short,  throughout  this  section  we  are  continu- 
ally reminded  that  the  triumphing  of  the  wicked  is  but  for  a  moment, 
and  that  God  judgeth  in  the  earth. 

7.  The  Epilogue:  chap.  21.  In  this  section  we  see  the  spread  of 
the  Church ;  the  successful  ministry  of  the  Apostles  when,  at  the  word 
of  Jesus,  they  cast  their  net  into  the  great  sea  of  the  nations;  the 
satisfaction  and  joy  experienced  by  them  in  the  results  of  protracted 
toil.  Finally,  we  see  in  it  the  reinstitution  in  the  person  of  Peter  of 
Christian  witness-bearing  to  Jesus,  together  with  the  intimation  of  the 


INTRODUCTION. 


certain  approach  of  that  glorious  time  when  the  need  of  such  testi- 
mony, with  all  its  labors  and  sufferings,  shall  be  superseded  by  the 
Second  Coming  of  the  Lord. 

Such  appears  to  be  the  plan  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, — a  plan  vindi- 
cated by  the  narrative  itself,  aud  having  each  of  its  sections  marked 
off  from  the  others  by  lines  too  distinct  to  be  mistaken. 

When,  accordingly,  we  recall  what  has  been  already  said  as  to  the 
leading  aim  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  we  can  have  little  difficulty  in  un- 
derstanding the  influence  which  that  aim  exerts  upon  the  selection  of 
particulars  and  upon  the  structure  of  the  narrative  as  a  whole.  If  in 
this  Gospel  pre-eminently  Jesus  reveals  Himself  with  so  much  fre- 
quency and  fulness,  we  have  seen  that  this  is  the  very  truth  which 
the  Evangelist  has  set  himself  to  unfold.  Its  prominence  can  throw 
no  suspicion  upon  the  historical  reality  of  the  representation.  We  are 
prepared  to  find  in  this  Gospel  a  revelation  of  Jesus  and  His  own 
glory  different  both  in  manner  and  degree  from  that  presented  in  the 
earlier  Gospels. 

The  considerations  that  have  now  been  adduced  with  regard  to  the 
history  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  the  external  and  internal  evidence 
bearing  upon  its  Johannine  authorship,  and  the  striking  peculiarity  of 
the  characteristics  by  which  it  is  marked,  seem  sufficient  to  satisfy 
every  reasonable  inquirer  that  the  uniform  tradition  of  the  Church, 
pointing  to  the  Apostle  John  as  its  author,  is  correct.  It  is  not  to  be 
denied,  however,  that  there  remain  difficulties,  some  of  a  general  na- 
ture, others  arising  out  of  special  details  contained  in  the  Gospel  itself. 
Our  readers  will  readily  acknowledge  that  it  is  wholly  impossible 
within  our  limits  to  treat  these  with  a  fulness  worthy  of  their  import- 
ance. Of  the  second  class  of  difficulties,  too,  it  is  less  necessary  to 
speak,  for  they  will  naturally  present  themselves  as  we  comment  on 
the  text  of  the  Gospel.  Perhaps  the  only  points  that  require  notice  in 
an  Introduction  are  two  belonging  to  the  first  class,— the  relation  in 
which  the  Fourth  Gospel  stands  (1)  to  the  Apocalypse,  (2)  to  the 
earlier  Gospels.  The  first  of  these  must  be  deferred  until  the  Apoc- 
alypse comes  under  our  notice  in  this  work.  Upon  the  second  we  say 
a  few  words  in  bringing  this  Introduction  to  a  close. 


INTRODUCTION. 


V.      RELATION  OF  THE  FOURTH    TO  THE  EARLIER    GOSPELS. 

This  relation  is  often  supposed  to  be  one  of  ii-reconcilable  diver- 
gence, and  the  divergence  is  found  not  only  in  particular  statements 
in  which  the  Fourth  Gospel  touches  the  others,  but  in  the  history  as  a 
-whole.  Alleged  differences  of  the  first  kind  will  be  noticed  when  we 
meet  them  in  the  course  of  exposition.  Looking,  therefore,  only  at 
the  history  as  a  whole,  the  reader  will  easily  observe  that  the  apparent 
divergence  runs  in  two  main  lines,  one  having  reference  to  the  out- 
ward framework,  the  other  to  the  portraiture  of  Jesus,  in  Himself  and 
in  His  discourses.  As  to  the  first  of  these,  in  its  two  branches,  the 
sce7ie  and  the  duration  of  the  ministry,  little  need  be  said.  It  is  true 
that  in  the  earlier  Gospels  the  scene,  up  to  the  Passion  week,  appears 
to  be  Galilee  alone,  while  in  the  Fourth  it  is  even  more  Jerusalem  and 
Judcea ;  that  in  the  former  the  duration  seems  less  than  one  year,  in  the 
latter  more  than  two.  Yet  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  no  one  of  our 
narratives  professes  to  give  a  complete  history  of  the  life  of  our  Lord 
upon  earth.  Their  fragmentariness  is  one  of  their  essential  character- 
istics, admitted  by  all  in  the  case  of  the  Synoptists,  distinctly  declared 
by  John  in  his  own  case  (chap.  20:  30,  21:  25).  All,  therefore,  that 
we  are  entitled  to  ask  is,  that  the  earlier  Gospels  shall  leave  room 
for  the  larger  area  and  the  longer  time  borne  witness  to  by  the  latter ; 
and  this  they  do. 

There  is  more,  however,  to  be  said ;  for  our  different  groups  of 
authorities  mutually  imply  the  labors  of  Jesus  in  those  portions  of 
the  land  of  Palestine  which  occupy  a  subordinate  position  in  their  own 
narratives.  It  is  unnecessary  to  prove  this  with  regard  to  John,  so 
frequent  is  the  mention  made  by  him  of  the  ministry  in  Galilee.  The 
notices  of  the  others  with  regard  to  the  Judtean  ministry  are  not  so 
plain ;  but  even  in  them  there  occur  passages  which  are  unintelligible, 
except  on  the  supposition  that  such  a  ministry  had  existed.  Such 
passages  are  Matt.  23:  37  (comp.  Luke  13:  34),  where  the  words 
*  how  often  '  are  almost  conclusive  upon  the  point ;  Matt.  21 :  8,  indi- 
cating a  previous  acquaintance  to  account  for  the  enthusiasm  ;  Luke 
10:  38-42,  refennng  most  probably  to  Bethany;  while,  if  in  Luke  4: 
44  we  accept  the  reading,  'And  He  preached  in  the  synagogues  of 
Jadsea,'' — and  the  evidence  in  its  favor  seems  to  be  overwhelming, — 
the  whole  controversy  is  set  at  rest.  It  may  be  added  that  the  words 
3 


INTRODUCTION. 


of  Peter  in  Acts  10:  37-39  have  an  important  bearing  upon  the  point; 
and  that  all  the  probabilities  of  the  case  are  opposed  to  the  supposition 
either  that  Jesus  would  confine  Himself  to  Galilee,  or  that  the  great 
drama  of  His  life  and  death  could  have  been  enacted  in  less  than  a 
single  year. 

More  important  than  the  outward  framework  of  the  history  is  the 
portraiture  of  Jesus  presented  in  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  and  this  again 
may  be  naturally  divided  into  two  branches,  the  Person  and  the  dis- 
courses. As  to  the  first  of  these,  it  is  no  doubt  in  John  alone  that 
■we  meet  with  the  conception  of  Jesus  as  the  Logos,  or  Word  of  God. 
Yet  there  is  ample  ground  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  is  not  the 
object  of  the  writer  so  to  delineate  Jesus  as  to  make  the  Logos  con- 
ception the  dominating  conception  of  His  personality.  The  remark 
has  often  been  made,  that  in  the  whole  course  of  the  Gospel  Jesus  does 
not  once  apply  the  designation  of  Logos  to  Himself, — neither  in  the 
three  aspects  of  Jesus  already  spoken  of  as  prominent  in  chap.  1  :  nor 
in  the  closing  summary  of  chap.  20:  31,  is  the  Logos  mentioned;  and 
no  passage  can  be  quoted  in  which  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  the  Logos  is 
associated  with  '  witness '  borne  to  Him.  This  last  fact  has  not  been 
sufficiently  noticed,  but  its  importance  appears  to  us  to  be  great.  If 
there  is  one  characteristic  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  more  marked  than 
another,  it  is  the  perfect  and  absolute  simplicity  with  which  the  writer, 
whether  speaking  of  himself,  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  Baptist,  resolves  the 
proclamation  of  what  is  uttered  into  *  witness'  or  'bearing  witness." 
That  term  includes  in  it  the  whole  burden  of  the  commission  given  to 
each  of  them  to  fulfil.  Whatever  else  they  may  be,  they  are  first  and 
most  of  all  'witnesses.'  But  if  so,  and  if  to  enforce  the  Logos  idea  be 
the  main  purpose  of  the  Gospel  so  far  as  it  refers  to  the  Person  of  Christ, 
we  may  well  ask  why  that  idea  and  '  witness '  borne  to  it  are  never 
brought  together?  Jesus  is  witnessed  to  as  'the  Messiah,  which  is, 
being  interpreted,  the  Christ,'  as  the  one  '  of  whom  Moses  in  the  law 
and  the  prophets  did  speak,'  as  '  the  Son  of  God,  the  King  of  Israel ; ' 
he  is  not  witnessed  to  as  the  Logos,  although  he  is  the  Logos  ;  and  that 
single  fact  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  fourth  Evangelist  has  no 
thought  of  presenting  his  Master  in  a  light  different  from  that  in  which 
He  is  presented  by  his  predecessors. 

In  addition  to  this  it  may  be  observed  that  we  have  in  our  two 
groups  of  Gospels,  the  very  same  interchange  of  allusions  with  regard 


INTRODUCTION. 


to  the  Person  of  Christ  that  we  have  already  observed  when  speaking 
of  the  scene  of  the  ministry.  If  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  Jesus  is  pre- 
eminently Son  of  God,  He  is  not  less  distinctly  Son  of  man.  If,  again, 
in  the  earlier  Gospels  He  is  pre-eminently  Son  of  man.  He  at  the  same 
time  performs  acts  and  claims  authority  not  human  but  Divine.  He 
forgives  sins  (Matt.  9:  6),  is  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  (Matt.  12:  8),  rises 
from* the  dead  (Matt.  17:  9),  comes  in  His  kingdom)  Matt.  16:  28), 
sits  upon  the  throne  of  His  glory  (Matt.  19:  28) ;  nay,  in  one  passage 
He  speaks  of  Himself  as  Son  of  man  at  the  very  time  when  He  appro- 
priates as  true  the  confession  of  Peter,  that  He  is  '  the  Christ,  the  Sou 
of  the  living  God'  (Matt.  16:  13-28).  Many  other  passages  in  the 
earlier  Gospels  lead  to  the  same  conclusion ;  so  that,  although  the 
teaching  of  the  Fourth  as  to  the  Divine  nature  of  Jesus  is  richer  than 
theirs,  the  truth  itself,  so  far  from  being  excluded  from  our  minds, 
must  be  taken  along  with  us  in  reading  them  before  they  can  be 
properly  understood.  Without  it,  it  would  be  diflficult,  if  not  impos- 
sible, to  combine  their  expressions  into  a  consistent  whole. 

If  now  we  turn  from  the  Person  to  the  discourses  of  Christ,  as  these 
are  presented  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that  they 
differ  widely  from  those  of  the  earlier  Gospels,  both  in  form  and  in 
substance.  In  the  earlier  Gospels  the  truths  taught  by  our  Lord  are 
for  the  most  part  set  before  us  in  a  manner  simple  and  easily  under- 
stood, in  parables,  in  short  pithy  sayings,  in  sentences  partaking 
largely  of  the  proverbial  and  not  difficult  to  remember,  in  a  style 
adapted  to  the  popular  mind.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  not  only  is  there 
no  parable  properly  so  called,  but  aphorisms  are  much  more  rarely 
met  with,  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  takes  a  shape  adapted  to  enlight- 
ened and  spiritually-minded  disciples  rather  than  an  unenlightened 
multitude.  Nor  is  the  diflFerence  in  substance  less  marked.  In  the 
earlier  Gospels  the  instructions  and  sayings  of  Jesus  have  mainly  re- 
ference to  the  more  outward  aspects  of  His  kingdom,  to  His  own  ful- 
filling of  the  law,  to  the  moral  reformation  He  was  to  effect,  to  the 
practical  righteousness  required  of  His  disciples.  In  the  other  they 
have  reference  to  tho  profound,  the  mystical  relations  existing  be- 
tween the  Father  and  Himself,  between  Himself  and  His  people,  and 
among  the  various  members  of  His  flock. 

Again,  however,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  very  same  interchange 
of  allusions  which  we  have  already  found  existing  in  our  two  classes 


XXXVl 


INTRODUCTION. 


of  authorities  with  regard  to  the  outward  framework  of  the  history 
and  the  nature  of  Christ's  Person,  exists  also  in  their  accounts  of  His 
discourses.  Passages  may  be  quoted  from  John  partaking  at  least 
largely  of  the  aphoristic  character  of  the  teaching  generally  found  in 
the  first  three  Evangelists.  Thus  chap.  4:  44  may  be  compared 
with  Mark  6:4;  chap.  12:  8  with  Mark  14 :  7  ;  chap.  12:  25  T^ith 
Matt.  10:  39  ;  16:  25;  chap.  13:  16  with  Matt.  10:  24;  Luke  6:  40; 
chap.  13:  20  with  Matt.  10:  40;  chap.  15:  20  with  Matt.  10:  25; 
chap.  15:  21  with  Matt.  10:  22;  chap.  18:  11  with  Matt.  16:  52; 
chap.  20 :  23  with  Matt.  16 :  19.  Although,  too,  there  are  no  parables 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  many  of  its  figures  so  much  resemble  parables, 
could  be  so  easily  drawn  out  into  parables,  that  they  have  been  appro- 
priately described  as  'parables  transformed.**  Such  are  the  passages 
relating  to  the  blowing  of  the  wind,  the  fields  white  unto  the  harvest, 
the  corn  of  wheat  which  must  die  in  the  ground  before  it  springs  up, 
the  sorrow  and  subsequent  joy  of  the  woman  in  travail,  the  good  shep- 
herd, the  true  vine  (chap.  3:8;  4:  35;  12:  24;  10:  1-16;  15;  1-8). 
Nor  can  we  forget  that,  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  it  is  for  the  most  part  a 
different  audience  to  which  .Jesus  speaks.  He  addresses  not  so  much 
the  mass  of  the  people  as  the  '  Jews ;'  and  as  those  so  designated 
undoubtedly  comprised  a  large  number  of  the  most  highly  educated  of 
the  day,  we  may  expect  that  they  will  be  spoken  to  in  a  tone  diflFerent 
from  that  adopted  towards  others.  The  words  of  chap.  6 :  41  (see  the 
Commentary)  are  in  this  respect  peculiarly  important ;  for  it  appears 
from  them  that  the  'hard  sayings'  found  in  the  remaining  portion  of 
the  discourse  given  in  that  chapter  were  intended,  not  for  the  *  multi- 
tude,' but  for  the  ruling  class.  The  words  of  ver.  59  might  at  first 
sight  lead  to  a  difi'erent  impression. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  clear  indications  in  the  earlier  Gospels 
that  Jesus  did  not  always  speak  in  that  sententious  and  parabolic  style 
which  they  mainly  represent  him  as  employing.  In  this  respect  the 
words  of  Matt.  xi.  25-27  cannot  be  too  frequently  referred  to,  for  the 
argument  founded  upon  them  is  perfectly  incontrovertible.  They  show 
that  a  style  of  teaching  precisely  similar  to  that  which  meets  us  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel  was  known  to  the  first.  Keim,  indeed,  has  attempted 
to  weaken  the  force  of  the  argument  by  the  allegation  that  the  words 
are  not  found  in  '  the  ordinary  every-day  intercourse'  of  Jesus,  but  at 

*  Westcott,  Intr.  to  Study  of  the  Gospels,  p.  268. 


INTRODUCTION. 


an  'isolated  and  exalted  moment  of  his  life,'*  Such  moments,  how- 
ever, are  precisely  those  -which  John  has  undertaken  to  record ;  or,  if 
this  ought  not  to  be  said,  it  is  Jesus  in  the  frame  of  mind  peculiar  to 
such  moments  that  he  especially  presents  to  us.  If,  therefore,  the 
words  given  by  ^latthew  are  appropriate  to  the  time  when  they  were 
spoken,  the  words  given  by  John,  though  on  many  different  occasions 
of  a  like  kind,  are  not  less  so.  Nor  is  this  the  only  passage  of  the 
earlier  Gospels  that  may  be  quoted  as  possessing  the  isolated  and  ex- 
alted character  referred  to.  The  words  at  the  institution  of  the  Last 
Supper  are  not  less  marked:  'Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body.  .  .  ,  Drink 
ye  all  of  it ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  which  is  shed 
for  many  for  the  remission  of  sins.  But  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not 
drink  henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day  when  I  drink 
it  new  with  you  in  my  Father's  kingdom'  (Matt.  26:  26-29),  Such 
words  exhibit  the  very  same  lofty  mystical  spirit  that  meets  us  in  the 
Gospel  of  John.  They  are  as  much  out  of  keeping  with  the  practical 
sententious  character  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  in  the  other  parts  of 
these  Gospels  (if  indeed  such  an  expression  is  to  be  used  at  all)  as 
anything  contained  in  the  Gospel  with  which  we  are  now  dealing.  A 
similar  remark  may  be  made  with  regard  to  the  eschatological  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  in  the  earlier  Gospels  (comp.  Matt.  24  :),  and  to  His 
answer  to  the  high  priest  (Matt.  26 :  64),  the  difference  between 
them  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  being  quite  as  great  as  that  be- 
tween His  general  teaching  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  in  the  Gospels 
which  preceded  it. 

It  is  in  this  thought,  indeed,  as  it  seems  to  us.  that  the  explanation 
of  the  point  now  before  us  is  to  be  found.  The  utterances  of  Jesus  in 
John  belong  to  the  tragic  aspect  of  His  work.  No  one  will  deny  that, 
taking  the  facts  even  of  the  first  three  Gospels  alone,  the  life  of  the 
Redeemer  upon  earth  was  marked  by  all  the  elements  of  the  most 
powerful  and  pathetic  tragedy.  His  perpetual  struggle  with  evil,  His 
love  and  self-sacrifice,  met  with  opposition  and  contempt ;  His  bear- 
ing the  sorrows  and  the  sins  of  men,  His  unshaken  confidence  in  God, 
His  sufferings  and  death,  the  constant  presence  of  His  Father  with 
Him,  and  the  glorious  vindication  given  Him  at  last  in  the  Resurrec- 
tion and  Ascension,  supply  particulars  possessed  of  a  power  to  move 
us  such  as  no  other  life  has  known.     In  this  point  of  view  John  looks 

*Keim,  Engl,  transl.,  1.  p.  176. 


INTRODUCTION. 


at  them.  His  Gospel  is  not  the  record  of  ordinary  life.  It  is  the  rec- 
ord of  a  life  which  passes  through  all  the  most  solemn  and  touching 
experiences  of  man,  and  which  makes  its  appeal  to  the  most  powerful 
emotions  of  the  heart.  This  is  very  strikingly  exhibited  in  the  light 
in  which  Jesus  is  set  before  us  at  the  first  moment  when  He  passes  be- 
yond the  circle  of  His  disciples  to  the  larger  field  of  the  world  (2 :  12, 
see  Commentary) ;  and  it  is  not  less  apparent  in  the  pathos  that  so 
often  marks  the  language  of  the  writer  (1:  11,  12:  37).  Hence  the 
almost  exclusive  presentation  of  tragic  scenes,  of  '  exalted  moments,' 
»nd  the  preservation  of  discourses  suitable  to  them. 

The  remarks  now  made,  though  applying  mainly  to  the  form,  may 
be  applied  also  to  the  substance  of  the  discourses  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
It  must  be  felt,  too,  that  the  profound  instructions  of  Jesus  contained 
in  it  are  not  out  of  keeping  with  the  personality  or  character  of  the 
Speaker,  Was  He  truly  the  Son  of  God  ?  Did  He  come  to  meet  every 
necessity  of  our  nature  ?  not  only  to  enforce  that  practical  morality  to 
which  conscience  bears  witness,  but  to  reveal  those  deeper  truths  on 
the  relation  of  man  to  God,  and  in  Him  to  his  brother  man,  for  which 
a  revelation  was  especially  needed ;  then  there  is  nothing  strange  in 
the  fact  that  He  should  have  spoken  so  much  of  matters  lying  far  be- 
yond mortal  ken.  Rather,  surely,  should  we  expect  that,  with  His 
own  heart  filled  with  the  deep  things  of  God,  He  would  speak  out  of 
its  abundance ;  that,  dwelling  Himself  amidst  the  great  realities  of 
the  unseen  and  spiritual  world,  He  would  many  a  time  lead  into  them 
the  disciples  whom  He  loved,  and  whom  He  would  guide  into  all  the 
truth. 

Or,  if  it  be  said  that  these  profound  teachings  were  spoken  not  to 
friends,  but  to  determined  enemies,  the  principle  of  reply  is  the  same. 
Here  also  there  is  the  same  elevation  above  the  level  of  common  life. 
These  '  Jews,'  so  constantly  addressed,  are  not  the  nation,  but  those 
in  whom  the  outward,  carnal,  selfish  spirit  of  a  degenerate  Judaism 
was  concentrated  (see  Commentary).  As  to  the  existence  of  this  class 
there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  title,  indeed,  is  peculiar  to  John,  but  the 
class  itself  meets  us  in  the  earlier  Evangelists.  If,  then,  it  existed,  we 
may  well  ask  whether  it  is  not  represented  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  as 
addressed  in  the  very  manner  in  which  such  an  audience  must  be 
spoken  to.  Let  us  suppose  any  Church  of  our  own  day  become  as 
carnal  as  the  Jewish  Church  in  the  days  of  Christ.     What  other  course 


INTRODUCTION. 


could  a  reformer  pursue,  what  other  language  could  he  use,  but  the 
course  and  the  language  of  Jesus  here?  A  worldly  church  cannot  be 
spoken  to  like  the  world ;  self-chosen  darkness  cannot  be  treated  like 
the  darkness  of  a  naturally  unfortunate  condition. 

What  has  been  said  goes  far  to  explain  the  peculiar  character  of  the 
discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  But  there  are  other  ques- 
tions in  connection  with*  them  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  allude.  Are 
they  purely  objective?  Are  they  a  record  of  the  exact  words  used  in 
the  circumstances  referred  to?  Are  they  free  from  any  trace  of  the 
mind  through  which  they  passed  in  their  transmission  to  us  ?  It  has 
been  urged  that  these  questions  must  be  answered  in  the  negative, 
partly  because  such  long  and  profound  discourses  could  not  have  been 
remembered  at  a  distance  of  fifty  years  from  the  time  when  they  were 
spoken,  partly  because  their  resemblance  to  the  First  Epistle  of  John 
is  a  proof  that  in  these  discourses  it  is  John  who  speaks  rather  than 
his  Master.  Neither  consideration  has  much  weight.  It  cannot  be 
imagined  that  only  at  the  end  of  fifty  years  would  the  Evangelist 
endeavor  to  remember  them.  Rather  throughout  all  that  time  must 
they  have  been  the  thftne  of  his  constant  and  loving  meditation  ;  day 
after  day  and  night  after  night  he  must  have  brought  up  before  him 
the  sight  of  that  much-loved  form  and  the  sound  of  that  well-remem- 
bered voice ;  and  every  word  of  his  Master,  even  many  a  word  which 
he  has  not  recorded,  must  have  been  ever  flowing  gently  through  his 
heart.  John  too  had  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  to  ■  bring  to  his  remem- 
brance all  things  that  Jesus  said  to  him'  (14:  26);  and,  to  whatever 
extent  we  admit  his  own  human  agency  in  the  composition  of  his 
Gospel,  we  cannot  forget  that  the  fulfilment  of  this  promise  must  have 
secured  him  from  the  errors  of  ordinary  writers,  and  enabled  him,  as 
they  could  not  have  done,  to  present  to  his  readers  the  perfect  truth. 
Nor,  further,  is  the  supposition  with  which  we  are  now  dealing 
needed  to  explain  the  fact  that  the  tone  of  much  of  our  Lord's  teach- 
ing in  this  Gospel  bears  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the  First 
Epistle  of  John.  Why  should  not  the  Gospel  explain  the  Epistle 
rather  than  the  Epistle  the  Gospel  ?  Why  should  not  John  have  been 
formed  upon  the  model  of  Jesus  rather  than  the  Jesus  of  this  Gospel 
be  the  reflected  image  of  himself?  Surely  it  may  be  left  to  all  candid 
minds  to  say  whether,  to  adopt  only  the  lowest  supposition,  the  crea- 
tive intellect  of  Jesus  was  not  far  more  likely  to  mould  His  disciple 


INTRODUCTION. 


to  a  conformity  with  itself,  than  the  receptive  spirit  of  the  disciple  to 
give  birth  by  its  own  efforts  to  that  conception  of  a  Redeemer  which 
so  infinitely  surpasses  the  loftiest  image  of  man's  own  creation. 

While,  however,  this  may  be  said,  it  may  at  the  same  time  be 
allowed  that  up  to  a  certain  point  the  form  in  which  the  discourses 
are  presented,  sometimes  even  their  very  language,  has  been  affected 
by  the  individuality  of  the  writer.  Lengthy  as  they  not  infrequently 
are,  they  are  obviously  compressed  statements  of  what  must  have 
occupied  a  still  longer  time  in  delivery,  with  much  of  the  questioning 
and  answering  that  must  have  occurred  in  a  protracted  controversy 
suppressed.  Occasionally  the  very  language  of  the  original  (as  in  the 
use  of  an  imperfect  tense)  indicates  this ;  while  the  reference  at  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles  (7 :  23)  to  the  healing  of  the  impotent  man  (chap. 
5),  which  must  have  taken  place  at  least  months  before,  is  a  proof  that 
that  miracle  done  on  the  Sabbath  had  been  kept  fresh  in  the  minds  of 
those  addressed  by  many  incidents  and  words  not  mentioned.  Links 
may  often  be  thus  awanting  which  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  supply,  and 
compression  could  hardly  fail  to  give  additional  sharpness  to  what  is 
said.  Besides  this,  the  tragic  spirit  of  the  Gosf  el,  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken,  may  be  expected  to  exercise  an  influence  over  the 
manner  in  which  discourses  are  presented  in  it.  Keeping  these  con- 
siderations in  view,  we  shall  look,  in  the  scenes  of  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
for  such  details  as  may  best  embody  the  essential  characteristics  of 
any  narrative  which  the  Evangelist  is  desirous  to  present  to  us,  rather 
than  for  all  the  particulars  with  which  he  was  acquainted.  We  shall 
understand,  too,  the  artificial  structure,  the  double  pictures  and 
parallelisms  which  meet  us  in  the  longer  discourses,  such  as  those  of 
chaps.  5,  10,  14,  15,  16,  (see  the  Commentary). 

The  sayings  and  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  not, 
therefore,  to  be  regarded  as  in  every  respect  simple  reproductions  of 
the  precise  words  spoken  by  Him.  The  true  conclusion  seems  to  be 
that  we  have  here  a  procedure  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist  precisely 
parallel  to  that  which  marks  his  method  of  dealing  with  the  historical 
incidents  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  These  are  selected,  grouped,  presented 
under  the  dominating  power  of  the  idea  which  he  knows  that  they 
express.  So  also  with  the  words  of  Christ.  They  also  are  selected, 
grouped,  presented  under  the  power  of  the  fundamental  idea  which 
prevails  throughout  them. 


INTRODUCTION.  xU 


By  frankly  admitting  this  much  is  gained.  On  the  one  hand,  his- 
torical accuracy,  in  its  deepest  and  truest  sense,  is  not  impaired ;  the 
result  produced  in  the  mind  of  the  reader  is  exactly  that  which  was 
produced  by  our  Lord  Himself  upon  those  who  witnessed  His  actions 
or  heard  His  words.  On  the  other  hand,  the  facts  of  the  case  receive 
a  natural  explanation.  Above  all,  the  whole  procedure  on  the  part 
of  John  is  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  Him  who  would  have 
us  always  rise  through  His  words  to  that  divine  ideal  which  they 
reveal. 

One  other  remark  ought  to  be  made  before  we  close.  In  so  far  as 
the  difference  between  John  and  the  Synoptists  affords  ground  for  an 
argument,  its  bearing  is  favorable,  not  unfavorable,  to  the  authenticity 
of  our  Gospel.  Let  us  assume  for  a  moment  the  earliest  date  assigned 
to  it  by  the  opponents  of  its  apostolical  authority,  and  what  is  the 
phenomenon  presented  to  us?  That  about  a.  d.  110  a  writer,  ob- 
viously setting  before  himself  the  purpose  of  giving  a  delineation  of 
the  life  of  Jesus  and  of  impressing  it  on  the  Church,  departed  entirely 
from  the  traditional  records  that  had  now  taken  a  settled  form  ;  that 
he  transferred  the  Messiah's  labors  to  scenes  previously  unheard  of; 
gave  to  His  ministry  a  duration  previously  unknown;  represented 
both  His  person  and  His  work  in  a  light  wholly  new  ;  and  then  ex- 
pected the  Church,  which  had  by  this  time  spread  abroad  into  all 
regions,  through  three  generations  of  men,  to  accept  his  account  as 
correct.  In  the  very  statement  of  the  case  its  incredibility  appears. 
Only  on  the  supposition  that  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  felt  that 
the  Church  for  which  he  wrote  would  recognize  essential  harmony, 
not  contradiction,  between  his  representation  and  that  of  his  prede- 
cessors, that  men  would  see  in  it  that  enlarging  of  the  picture  of  a 
loved  personality  which  faithful  memories  supply,  can  we  explain  his 
having  written  as  he  has  done. 

VI.    THE    PRINCIPLES    OF    THIS    COMMENTARY. 

We  have  spoken,  as  far  as  our  limited  space  will  allow,  of  some  of 
those  points  connected  with  the  Gospel  of  John  which  seem  likely  to 
be  of  most  interest  to  the  readers  of  a  Commentary  like  the  present, 
or  which  may  prepare  them  to  understand  better  the  following  expo- 
sition. It  remains  only  that  we  indicate  in  a  sentence  or  two  the 
principles  upon  which  that  exposition  is  founded. 


xlii  INTRODUCTION. 


Our  main,  it  may  almost  be  said  our  single,  effort  has  been  to  ascer- 
tain the  meaning  of  the  words  before  us,  and  to  trace  the  thought 
alike  of  the  writer  himself  and  of  the  great  Master  whom  he  sets 
forth.  In  doing  this  we  have  endeavored  to  bestow  more  than  ordi- 
nary care  upon  every  turn  of  expression  in  the  original,  upon  every 
change  of  construction,  however  slight,  effected  by  prepositions, 
tenses,  cases,  or  even  order  of  words.  Many  such  changes  have  no 
doubt  escaped  our  notice,  and  some  have  been  left  without  remark  be- 
cause we  felt  unable  to  supply  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  them. 
Even  as  it  is,  however,  it  is  probable  that  not  a  few  will  think  that  we 
have  been  too  minute;  and  that,  in  spending  time  upon  what  they 
will  regard  as  trifling  particulars,  we  have  paid  too  little  attention  to 
those  larger  statements  of  truth  which  might  have  been  better  adapted 
to  the  readers  for  whom  we  write.  From  such  an  opinion  we  venture 
entirely  to  dissent.  No  trustworthy  statements  of  general  truth  can 
be  at  any  time  gained  without  the  most  complete  induction  of  particu- 
lars ;  and  if  this  be  true  of  any  book  of  Scripture,  it  is  even  pecu- 
liarly true  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  The  care  bestowed  upon  it  by  its 
writer  is  one  of  its  most  remarkable  characteristics.  Whatever  be  the 
sublimity  to  which  it  rises,  however  impassioned  its  language,  or 
however  deep  the  flow  of  its  emotion,  every  phrase  or  word  or  con- 
struction contained  in  it  is  fitted  into  its  place  as  if  the  calmest  and 
most  deliberate  purpose  had  presided  over  the  selection.  It  is  the 
skill  of  the  loftiest  feeling,  though  unconsciously  exercised,  that  has 
made  the  Gospel  what  it  is.  The  truth  contained  in  it  has  woven  for 
itself  a  garb  corresponding  in  the  most  minute  particulars  to  its  na- 
ture, and  every  change  in  the  direction  even  of  one  of  its  threads  is  a 
testimony  to  some  change  in  the  aspects  of  the  truth  by  whose  living 
energy  the  whole  was  fashioned.  If,  therefore,  we  have  erred  in  con- 
nection Avith  this  point,  we  have  erred  not  by  excess  but  by  defect.  A 
rich  harvest  still  awaits  those  who  will  be  more  faithful  to  the  princi- 
ple or  more  successful  in  carrying  it  out  than  we  have  been. 

It  seems  unnecessary  to  add  much  more  as  to  the  principles  by 
which  we  have  been  guided  in  our  work.  Innumerable  references 
might  easily  have  been  made  to  the  extensive  literature  connected 
with  this  Gospel,  and  to  the  opinions  of  those  who  have  commented 
upon  it  before  us.  We  have  thought  it  best,  except  in  one  or  two  in- 
stances, to  refrain  from  giving  them.     In  addition  to  the  Commenta- 


INTRODUCTION.  xliii 


ries  of  Luthardt,  Godet,  Lange,  Meyer,  and  others,  which  it  would 
have  been  presumption  to  ncolect,  we  have  endeavored  to  use  all  other 
helps  within  our  reach.  Unfortunately,  the  noble  Commentary  of  Dr. 
Westcott  did  not  appear  until  almost  the  last  of  the  following  pages 
had  been  printed  off.  It  was  thus  impossible  to  take  advantage  of  it ; 
but  to  the  personal  communications  of  that  eminent  scholar,  and  to 
the  discussions  which  have  taken  place  in  the  New  Testament  Revision 
Company,  in  regard  alike  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  other  books  of 
the  New  Testament,  we  probably  owe  more  than  Ave  are  ourselves 
aware  of.  At  the  same  time,  we  are  not  conscious  of  having  yielded 
in  any  instance  to  authority  however  great.  Under  a  deep  sense  at 
once  of  the  difficulty  and  responsibility  of  our  task,  we  have  submit- 
ted every  question  to  independent  investigation  ;  and  the  results,  very 
often  different  frcm  those  of  our  predecessors,  must  be  left  to  speak 
for  themselves. 

It  would  be  too  much  to  expect  that  our  readers  will  find  every 
difficulty  discussed  which  meets  them  in  their  own  study  of  this  Gos- 
pel. One  of  the  most  marked  peculiarities  of  such  a  book  is  that,  in 
the  fulness  of  its  life  and  meaning,  it  strikes  every  attentive  student 
in  a  different  light,  and  suggests  to  each  thoughts  and  problems  which 
do  not  occur  to  others.  All  that  we  can  say  is,  that  in  no  single  in- 
stance have  we  consciously  passed  by  a  difficulty  that  we  ourselves 
felt;  and  we  may  perhaps  venture  to  hope  that  the  principles  upon 
which  these  have  been  treated  may  be  applicable  to  others  of  which 
we  had  not  thought. 

The  principles  upon  which  the  Text  of  the  Gospel  has  been  deter- 
mined were  explained  by  one  of  the  authors  of  this  Commentary  in 
the  second  part  of  a  small  work  on  '  The  Words  of  the  New  Testament,' 
published  some  years  ago,  and  now  out  of  print.  In  the  translation 
of  the  text,  we  have  aimed  at  correctness  rather  than  ease  of  continu- 
ous expression :  and  if  we  have  almost  always  given  a  full  translation 
at  the  head  of  the  notes,  the  reason  is  easily  explained.  It  seemed 
desirable,  where  not  only  every  word,  but  even  the  order  of  all  the 
words  is  important,  that  the  reader  should  have  the  complete  sentence 
directly  under  his  eye. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  be  permitted  to  say  that  both  the  authors  of 
the  following  Commentary  hold  themselves  responsible  for  the  whole. 
No  part  of  it  is  the  work  of  either  by  himself;  and  they  have  wrought 


xliv  INTRODUCTION. 


together  with  a  harmony  which,  through  all  the  three  or  four  years 
it  has  occupied  them  has  been  to  both  a  source  of  constant  thankful- 
ness and  joy.  But  they  desire  to  forget  themselves,  and  they  ask 
their  readers  to  forget  them,  in  the  one  common  aim  to  discover  the 
true  meaning  of  a  Gospel  which  the  eloquent  Herder  long  ago  de- 
scribed as  '  the  heart  of  Jesus.' 


July,  1880. 


THE  GOSPEL  ACCOEDIN!^  TO 

JOHK       " 


7\ 


Chapter   1  :  1-18.    '.v^^         ^^, 
The  Prologue. 
1:1     In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  AYord 

The  Prologue,  vers.  1-18. 

CoNTF-NTS. — The  Prologue  of  the  Gospel  of  John  stands  in  the  most  intimate  connec- 
tion with  the  plan  and  purpose  of  the  Gospel  as  a  whole.  It  is  not  to  be  regarded  aa 
a  philosophical  speculation  to  which  the  historical  life  of  the  Redeemer  shill  be 
afterwards  conformed.  It  contains  rather  a  short  summary  of  that  life  in  the  light 
in  which  the  Evangelist  had  been  divinely  taught  to  regard  it,  and  of  the  impressions 
which  he  had  gathered  from  it  as  the  manifestation,  the  revelation,  of  God  Himself 
to  men.  It  is  to  illustrate  and  unfold  this  conception,  which  is  at  once  metaphysical, 
theological,  and  historical,  that  the  fourth  Evangelist  writes.  Hence  he  begins  with 
a  description  of  what  Jesus  was  in  Himself,  in  the  profoundest  depths  of  His  being; 
passing  from  that  to  what  He  '  became '  in  order  that  in  Him  men  might  so  behold 
the  glory  of  the  Father  as  to  be  transfigured  into  the  same  glory,  reaching  onward  to 
the  fulfilment  of  their  own  destiny,  to  be  children  of  God. 

The  Prologue  is  usually  divided  into  three  parts,  ending  with  ver.  5,  ver.  13,  ver.  18, 
respectively.  Of  these  divisions,  the  first  brings  before  us  the  thought  of  the  Eternal 
Word,— in  Himself  (ver.  1),  and  as  the  source  of  created  being,  of  life,  of  light  (vers. 
2-5).  The  subject  of  the  next  thirteen  venses  is  the  Word  as  revealed  to  men,  first 
generally  (vers.  6-13),  and  secondly  by  the  Incarnation  (vers.  14-18).  These  two 
sections  (in  accordance  with  an  important  principle  of  structure,  characterizing  both 
this  Gospel  and  the  Apocalypse),  though  apparently  successive,  are  really  parallel:  the 
thought  is  thus  presented  under  two  aspects,  the  second  fuller  and  more  definite  than 
the  first.  In  the  former  section  we  read  of  the  Baptist,  sent  to  bear  witness  concerning 
the  manifestation  of  the  Word  as  the  Light  (vers.  6-8) ;  then  of  the  twofold  results  of 
this  manifestation,  but  e.specially  of  the  blessedness  of  those  who  received  the  V(oTd 
(vers.  9-13).  The  next  section  records  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word  (ver.  14) ;  the 
testimony  borne  by  the  Baptist  to  the  glory  of  the  Incarnate  Word  (ver.  1.5) ;  and,  as 
before  (but  with  greater  clearness  and  definiteness,  and  from  the  point  of  view  of 
human  experience),  the  results  of  this  crowning  manifestation  of  the  Word.  This 
analysis,  whilst  showing  the  general  parallelism  of  the  thoughts  in  the  several 
divisions  of  the  Prologue,  shows  also  that  the  division  as  hitherto  indicated  is  insuffi- 
cient Ver.  14  clearly  commences  a  new  section,  and  yet  ver.  15  (relating  to  the 
Baptist)  immediately  recalls  the  commencement  of  the  former  spciion  (ver  6).  If, 
however,  ver.  14  be  carefully  examined,  it  will  be  seen  that  it  stands  in  a  definite 


JOHN  I.  [1:  1. 


relation  to  the  first  section,  the  opening  words  ('  And  the  Word  became  flesh  ')  being 
antithetical  to  ver.  1,  and  the  remainder  of  the  verse  (which  sets  forth  generally  the 
manifestation  of  the  Incarnate  Word)  corresponding  to  vers.  2-5.     Hence  the  struc- 
ture of  the  Prologue  as  a  whole  may  be  presented  in  the  following  tabular  form: — 
Section  I.   The  Wokd. 
(o)  In  Himself  (ver.  1). 

(6)  In  His  general  manifestations  (vers.  2-5). 
Section  II.  The  Wokd  appearing  in  the  wokld. 

(a)  The  Baptist's  general  witness  concerning  the  Word,  as  the  Light  (vers.  6-8). 
(5)  The  general  results  of  the  manifestation  of  the  Word  (vers.  9-13). 
Section  III.  The  Wokd  fully  revealed  in  the  Incarnation. 
A.  (1)  The  Incarnate  Word  Himself  (ver.  14  a:  parallel  to  ver.  1). 

(2)  The  Incarnate  Word  in  His  general  manifestation  of  Himself  (ver.  14  b : 
pai-allel  to  vers.  2-5). 
£.    The  Baptist's  witness,  now  definite  and  personal  (ver.  15  :  parallel  to  vers. 

6-8). 
C.    The  complete  results  of  this  manifestation  of  the  Word  in  the  case  of  all  who 
receive  Him  (vers.  lG-18 :  parallel  to  vers.  9-13). 

Ver.  1.  In  the  beginning  -was  the  "Word.  This  sublime 
opening  of  the  Gospel  carries  our  thoughts  at  once  to  the  no  less  sub- 
lime opening  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  whose  first  words  the  Evangelist 
certainly  had  present  to  his  mind.  He  too  will  tell  of  a  creation,  and 
a  creation  has  a  '  beginning.'  The  words  'in  the  beginning,'  taken 
by  themselves,  do  not  express  the  idea  of  eternal  pre-existence ;  but 
they  leave  room  for  it,  and  in  this  respect  they  stand  contrasted  with 
the  phrase  *  from  the  beginning,'  which  often  meets  us  in  the  writings 
of  John  (8 :  44 ;  1  John  1:1,  2:7,  24,  3:8).  They  denote  simply 
the  point  of  time  ;  and  the  difference  of  thought  with  which  they  are 
connected,  as  compared  with  Gen.  1  :  1,  is  to  be  found  not  in  the 
meaning  of  *  beginning,'  but  in  the  different  direction  which  the  writer 
takes,  and  in  the  verb  which  he  employs.  In  Gen.  1 :  1,  the  sacred 
historian  starts  from  the  beginning  and  comes  downwards,  thus  keep- 
ing us  in  the  course  of  time.  John  starts  from  the  same  point,  but 
goes  upwards,  thus  taking  us  into  the  eternity  preceding  time.  In 
Gen.  1  :  1,  we  are  told  that  God  'in  the  beginning  created,^ — an  act 
done  in  time.  Here  Ave  are  told  that  'in  the  beginning  the  Word  was,' 
a  verb  strongly  antithetical  to  'came  into  being'  (vers.  3,  14,  comp. 
8:  58),  and  implying  an  absolute  existence  preceding  the  point 
referred  to.  As  that  which  is  absolute,  self-existent,  not  created — that 
which  is — is  eternal,  so  the  predication  of  eternity  is  involved  in  the 
clause  before  us  taken  as  a  whole.  He  who  thus  *  was  in  the  begin- 
ning,' who,  as  we  afterwards  read, ,'  was  with  God,'  and  '  was  God,' 
here  bears  the  name  of  '  the  Word '  [Logos,  which  means  both  reason 
and  word'\.  In  one  other  verse  of  the  Prologue  this  name  is  repeated 
(ver.  14) ;  but  it  does  not  occur  again  in  the  Gospel.  Nor  shall  we 
find  the  term  fused,  as  here,  simply  and  without  qualification)  in  any 
other  passage  of  the  New  Testament.     The  nearest  approach  is  found 


1:  1.]  JOHN  I. 


in  Rev.  19:  13,  where  the  name  of  the  righteous  Conqueror  and  King 
is  given  as  *  The  Word  of  God.'     Two  or  more  other  passages  may  be 
said  rather  to  recall  to  our  thought  the  name  we  are  considering  than 
to  present  examples  of  its  use ;  see  especially  1  John  1  :  1  ('  the  word 
of  life,'  followed  by  'the  life  was  manifested,'  ver,  2),  and  Heb.  4:  12. 
Though,  however,  this  term  is  not  really  adopted  by  any  New  Testa- 
ment writer  except  John,  it  is  not  peculiar  to  him  in  any  other  sense. 
"When  he  wrote,  it  was  a  familiar   and   current   term  of  theology.     It 
has  sometimes,  indeed,  been  maintained   that   John's  usage  must  be 
taken  by  itself,  since  with  very  much  of  the  theological  speculation  in 
which  this  term  so  freely  occurs  he  can  have  had  no  sympathy.     We 
shall  see  that  John's  usage  certainly  does  in  an  important  sense  stand 
alone  ;  but  as  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that  he,  living  at  Ephesus  (to 
say  nothing  of  his   long   residence  in   Palestine),  should  have   been 
unacquainted  with  the  current   doctrines   respecting  the  Logos,  it  is 
inconceivable  that  he  can  have  taken  up  the  term  without  reference  to 
these  doctrines.     Hence  it  is  with  the  history  of  the  term  that  we  first 
have  to  do.     Every  careful  reader  of  the  Old  Testament  is  struck  by 
the  prominence  given  in  certain    passages  to  '  the  word  of  the  Lord,' 
language  which  almost  implies  personal  action  being  sometimes  con- 
nected  with   this    'word.'      See,    for  example,  Ps,   38:  6,   105:   19, 
107  :  20;  1  Sam.  3  :  21.     The  root  of  this  usage  (at  all  events  in  very 
many  instances)  is  to  be  found  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  where 
the  successive  acts  of  creation  are  associated  with  divine  words   (see 
Ps.   33:    6),     Such    passages    as    these,  with  their  partial  personifi- 
cation of  the  word  of  God,  seem  to  have  powerfully  impressed  early 
Jewish  teaching.     There  was  much  besides  in  the  Old  Testament  to 
strengthen  this  impression, — as  the  frequent  references  in  the  Penta- 
teuch to  the  Angel  of  Jehovah,  and  the  language  used  of  Wisdom  in 
the  Book   of  Proverbs    (chapter  8;    compare    also    chapters  1,3,9, 
and   Job    28).      Thus    a  minute    study  of  Scripture    language   was 
the  means  of  leading  Jewish  teachers  to  connect  divine  acts  with  some 
personified  attribute  of  God  rather  than  with  God  Himself,  or  to  seek 
for  some  medium  of  communication  between  God  and  man  where  the 
Scriptures  themselves  had  spoken  of  direct  revelation  or  fellowship. 
What  other  influence  aided  this  tendency  of  thought,  we  cannot  here 
inquire.     The  results  are  patent,  especially  in  the  Targums  or  Chaldee 
paraphrases  of  Scripture.     The  dates  of  the  several  Targums  which 
are  extant  have  been  a  matter  of  controversy  :   for  our  purpose,  how- 
ever, this  is  not  of  consequence,  as  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands 
that  every  one  of  these  paraphrases   contains  early  materials.     We 
cannot  within  our  limits  quote  at  length ;  but  a  reference  to  the  fol- 
lowing passages  in   Etheridge's   translation  of  the    Targums    on  the 
Pentateuch  will  show  how- far  the  writers  went  in  substituting  'the. 
Word'   {3Iemra)  for  the  name  of  God   Himself.     In  the  Targum   of 
Onkelos,  see  Gen.  3  :  8,  28  :  20 ;  Num.  23  :  4,  21 ;  Deut.  9  :  3  :  in  that 
of  Pseudo- Jonathan,  Gen.  3:8;  Num.   23:   4,  21  :  in  the  Jerusalem 
Targum,   besides   the   three  last    mentioned,    Gea.  18 :   1 ;    16 :   13 ; 


JOHN  I,  [1:  1. 


19 :  24,  From  the  Targum  of  Jonathan  Ben  Uzziel  may  be  quoted 
Isa.  63:  7;  Mai.  3:1.  An  examination  of  these  passages  will  show 
how  familiar  to  Jews  had  become  the  conception  of  the  Word  of  God, 
through  whom  God  made  Himself  known  to  men.  Very  little  light  is 
thrown  upon  the  subject  by  the  several  Apocryphal  books,  and  hence 
it  will  not  be  necessary  to  refer  to  them  here.  It  is  otherwise  with 
the  writings  of  the  great  Alexandrian  philosopher  Philo.  In  these 
the  doctrine  of  the  Divine  Word  holds  a  prominence  which  it  would 
be  hard  to  exaggerate.  Yet  from  the  multitude  of  passages  in  which 
Philo  speaks  of  the  attributes  and  actions  of  the  Word,  it  is  impossible 
to  deduce  with  any  certainty  a  clear  statement  of  doctrine.  ISow  the 
"Word  seems  distinctly  personal,  now  an  attribute  of  God  personified. 
In  some  passages  the  idea  can  be  traced  back  to  the  thought  of  '  spoken 
word ;'  in  many  others  Philo  takes  up  the  other  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word  Logos,  viz.  reason.  Hence,  though  Philo  speaks  of  the  universe 
as  created  through  the  Logos,  yet  in  other  passages  the  Logos  is  the 
design  or  the  idea  of  creation  in  the  mind  of  God.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  carry  this  inquiry  farther,  since  our  only  object  is  to  collect  the 
chief  elements  of  thought  associated  with  this  term  when  John  wrote. 
As  has  been  said,  be  could  not  be  ignorant  of  these  various  forms  of 
teaching ;  if  not  ignorant,  he  could  not  be  indifferent  on  the  one  hand 
to  the  good,  or  on  the  other  to  the  evil,  which  they  contained.  He 
recognized  the  various  teachings  as  a  providential  preparation  for  the 
true  theology.  In  these  introductory  verses  he  adopts  the  term,  but 
so  defines  it  as  to  fix  its  meaning  for  all  Christians.  There  is  One  by 
whom  the  Eternal  and  Invisible  God  reveals  Himself:  the  Eevealer  is 
a  Person  :  the  Revealer  is  Himself  God.  Not  only  in  outward  mani- 
festation, but  also  in  inward  fellowship  with  the  heart,  God  reveals 
Himself  by  the  Word  of  God,  who  is  God.  In  one  instance  John 
appears  to  take  up  and  ratify  the  wider  application  of  the  term  which 
we  have  noticed  above.  This  first  verse  takes  us  beyond  the  region 
of  revelation  to  man  :  when  '  in  the  beginning,'  beyond  the  limits  of 
time,  '  the  Logos  was,'  the  thought  of  '  speech  '  ceases  to  give  us  any 
help  towards  grasping  the  meaning ;  and,  if  we  may  venture  to  inter- 
pret the  term  at  all  in  this  application,  we  can  only  think  of  the 
human  analogy  by  which  we  pass  from  the  Uttered  word  to  the  thought 
or  reason  of  the  speaker.  To  all  that  John  teaches  respecting  the 
Logos,  the  Lord's  own  teaching  directly  led.  The  doctrine  of  these 
verses  is  identical  with  that  of  chaps.  5:  19,  6:  57,  10:  30, 
17 :  5,  etc.  The  personal  application  of  the  term  is  not  found 
in  our  Lord's  discourses ;  but  many  of  those  recorded  in  this 
Gospel  contain  remarkable  examples  of  that  exalted  use  of  'the 
word'  of  God  to  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  history  of  this  sub- 
lime name  may  ultimately  be  traced.  —  And  the  Word  was 
with  God:  the  second  of  the  three  statements  made  in  this  verse 
regarding  the  Word,  and  obviously  higher  than  the  first.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  convey  in  English  the  full  force  of  the  preposition  '  with '  in 
the  Greek,  for  it  denotes  not  merely  being  beside,  but  maintaining 


1:  2-4.]  JOHN  I. 


2  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God.     The  same 

3  was  in  the  beginning  with   God.      All   things  were 
made  ^by*  him  ;  and  without  him  ^was  not  anything 

4  made  that  hath  been  made.     In   him  was  life ;  and 

1  Or,  through.  *  Substitute  the  marginal  rendering  for  the  text. — Am.  Com. 

2  Or,  was  not  anything  made.     TJtat  which  hath  been  made  was  life  in  him  ;  and  the  life,  dc. 

communion  and  intercourse  with  (comp.  Mark  6  :  3  ;  1  John  1 :  2 ;  2 : 
1). — And  the  "Word  -was  God  :  the  third  and  highest  statement 
respecting  the  Word.  The  Word  is  possessed  of  divine  essence  ;  in 
that  being  in  which  He  '  was/  He  so  possesses  the  divine  attributes 
that  He  is  God.  There  is  ditterence  of  personality,  but  unity  of 
nature.     In  this  hast  ckuse  the  climax  of  the  three  clauses  is  complete. 

Ver,  2.  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  '  The 
same' — He  who  has  just  been  spoken  of  as  God — was  in  the  beginning 
'  with  God : '  i.  e.,  '  He  of  whom  I  have  spoken  as  God,  was  in  the 
beginning  in  active,  eternal  communion  with  God, — not  simply  the 
"Word  with  God,  but  God  with  God.'  The  elements  of  the  thought 
have  been  given  in  ver.  1,  but  in  their  combination  they  acquire  new 
force.  The  special  object  of  these  words  seems  to  be  to  prepare  for 
the  next  verse ;  it  is  only  when  we  have  been  taught  concerning  '  God 
with  God  '  that  we  are  prepared  to  hear  of  the  creation  of  all  things 
through''  the  Divine  Word.  He  with  whom  the  Divine  Word  'was  in 
the  beginning '  created  all  through  Him. 

Ver.  3.  All  things  came  into  being  through  him,  and 
apart  from  him  not  even  one  thing  came  into  being.  Such 
a  combination  of  two  clauses,  the  first  positive,  the  second  negative 
(see  note  on  ver.  20),  is  characteristic  of  John's  style.  The  two 
together  assert  the  truth  contained  in  them  with  a  universality  and 
force  not  otherwise  attainable.  .This  truth  is,  that  'all  things' — not 
all  as  a  whole,  but  all  things  in  the  individuality  which  precedes  their 
combination  into  a  whole — came  into  being  through  this  Word  who  is 
God.  The  preposition  '  through'  is  that  by  which  the  relation  of  the 
Second  Person  of  the  Trinity  to  creation  is  usually  expressed  (1  Cor. 
8:6;  Col.  1 :  16;  Heb.  1 :  2) ;  as,  indeed,  this  is  the  conception  which 
belongs  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos,  the  Divine  Word.  Occasionally, 
however,  the  same  language  is  used  of  the  Father :  see  Heb.  2 :  10, 
and  comp.  Rom.  11 :  36. 

Vers.  3,  4.  That  which  hath  come  into  being  was  life  in 
him.  We  are  led  by  various  considerations  to  take  this  view  of  the 
passage  rather  than  that  which  is  presented  in  the  Authorized  Version. 
The  Greek  admits  of  either  punctuation  (and  rendering),  but  the 
absence  of  the  article  before  the  word  'life'  suggests  that  it  is  here  a 
predicate,  not  the  subject  of  the  sentence.  By  almost  all  (if  not  all) 
the  Greek  Fathers  of  the  first  three  centuries  the  words  were  thus 
understood ;  and  we  may  reasonably,  in  such  a  case  as  this,  attach 
great  importance  to  the  conclusions  attained  by  that  linguistic  tact 


6  JOHN  I.  [1:  3,4. 

■which  is  often  most  sure  where  it  is  least  able  to  assign  distinct  reasons 
for  its  verdict.  Further,  this  division  of  the  words  corresponds  best 
witli  the  rhythmical  mode  in  which  the  earlier  sentences  of  the  Pro- 
logue are  connected  with  one  another.  It  is  characteristic  of  them  to 
make  the  voice  dwell  mainly,  in  each  line  of  the  rhythm,  upon  a  word 
taken  from  the  preceding  line  ;  and  this  characteristic  is  not  preserved 
in  the  case  before  us  unless  we  adhere  to  the  ancient  construction. 
We  have  seen  what  the  Word  is  in  Himself;  we  are  now  to  see  Him 
in  His  relation  to  His  creatures.  Created  being  was  '  life  in  Him.' 
He  was  life,  life  absolutely,  and  therefore  the  life  that  can  communi- 
cate itself, — the  infinitely  productive  life,  from  whom  alone  came  to 
every  creature,  as  He  called  it  into  being,  the  measure  of  life  that  it 
possesses.  In  Him  was  the  fountain  of. all  life;  and  every  form  of 
life,  known  or  unknown,  was  only  a  drop  of  water  from  the  stream 
■which,  gathered  up  in  Him  before,  flowed  forth  at  His  creative  word 
to  people  the  universe  of  being  with  the  endlessly  multiplied  and 
diversified  existences  that  play  their  part  in  it.  It  is  not  of  the  life  of 
man  only  that  John  speaks,  still  less  is  it  only  of  that  spiritual  and 
eternal  life  which  constitutes  man's  true  being.  If  the  word  'life'  is 
often  used  in  this  more  limited  sense  in  the  Gospel,  it  is  because  other 
kinds  and  developments  of  life  pass  out  of  view  in  the  presence  of  that 
life  on  which  the  writer  especially  loves  to  dwell.  The  word  itself 
has  no  such  limitation  of  meaning,  and  when  used,  as  here,  without 
anything  to  suggest  limitation,  it  must  be  taken  in  its  most  compre- 
hensive sense.  It  was  in  the  Word,  then,  that  all  things  that  have 
life  lived ;  the  very  physical  world,  if  we  can  say  of  its  movements 
that  they  are  life,  the  vegetable  world,  the  world  of  the  lower  animals, 
the  world  of  men  and  angels,  up  to  the  highest  angel  that  is  before 
the  throne.  Ere  yet  they  came  into  being,  their  life  was  in  the  Word 
who,  as  God,  was  life,  and  from  the  Word  they  received  it  when  their 
actual  being  began.  The  lesson  is  the,  same  as  that  of  Col.  1  :  16,  17, 
'In  Him  were  all  things  created,'  and  4n  Him  all  things  subsist;' 
or,  still  more,  of  Rev.  4:  11,  'Thou  didst  create  all  things,  and 
because  of  Thy  pleasure  they  were '  (not  '  are,'  as  in  the  Authorized 
Version),  'and  they  were  created.'— And  the  life  was  the  light 
of  men.  From  the  wide  thought  of  all  created  existences,  the 
Evangelist  passes  in  these  words  to  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  works 
of  God,  man,  whose  creation  is  recorded  in  the  first  chapter  of  Gene- 
sis. All  creatures  had  '  life '  in  the  Word  ;  but  this  life  was  to  man 
something  more  than  it  could  be  to  others,  because  he  had^  been 
created  after  a  fashion,  and  placed  in  a  sphere,  peculiar  to  himself 
amidst  the  different  orders  of  animated  being.  God  said,  '  Let  us 
make  man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness'  (Gen.  1 :  26)  Man  was 
thus  capable  of  receiving  God,  and  of  knowing  that  he  had  received 
Him  ;  he  had  a  sphere  and  a  capacity  belonging  to  none  of  the  lower 
creatures  spoken  of  in  the  great  record  of  creation ;  his  nature  was 
fitted  to  be  the  conscious  abode,  not  of  the  human  only,  but  of  the 
divine.     Hence  the  Word  could  be  in  him  as  in  no  other  creature. 


1 :  5.]  -■    JOHN  I. 


5  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.     And  the  light  shineth 
in  the  darkness ;  and  the  darkness  ^  apprehended  it 

1  Or,  overcame.    See  ch  12  ;  35  (Gr.). 

But  the  Word  is  God  (ver.  1),  and  '  God  is  light '  (1  John  1  :  5).  Thus 
the  Word  is  'light'  (comp,  ver,  7)  ;  and  as  man  was  essentially  fitted 
to  receive  the  Word,  that  Word  giving  life  to  all  found  in  him  a  fitness 
for  the  highest  and  fullest  life, — for  'light,'  therefore,  in  its  highest 
and  fullest  sense :  and  '  the  life  was  the  light  of  men.'  The  idea  of 
human  nature  thus  set  forth  in  these  words  is  peculiarly  remarkable, 
and  worthy  of  our  observation,  not  only  as  a  complete  answer  to 
those  who  bring  the  charge  of  Manicha3an  dualism  against  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  but  also  to  enable  us  to  comprehend  its  teaching  as  to  human 
responsibility  in  the  presence  of  Jesus.  *  The  life,'  it  is  said,  '  was 
the  light  of  men; '  not  of  a  class,  not  of  some,  but  of  all  the  members 
of  the  human  family  as  such.  Man's  true  nature,  it  is  said,  is  divine  : 
divine  in  this  respect  also,  as  distinguished  from  the  divine  in  all 
creation,  that  man  is  capable  of  recognizing,  acknowledging,  seeing 
the  divine  in  himself.  The  '  life '  becomes  '  light'  in  him,  and  it  does 
not  become  so  in  lower  creatures.  Man's  true  life  is  the  life  of  the 
Word  ;  it  was  so  originally,  and  he  knew  it  to  be  so.  If,  therefore,  he 
listens  to  the  tempter  and  yields  to  sin  (whose  existence  is  admitted 
simply  as  a  fact,  no  attempt  being  made  to  account  for  it),  man  cor- 
rupts his  true  nature,  and  is  responsible  for  doing  so.  But  his  fall 
cannot  destroy  his  nature,  which  still  testifies  to  what  his  first  condi- 
tion was,  to  what  his  normal  condition  is,  to  what  he  ought  to  be. 
Man,  therefore,  only  fulfills  his  original  nature  by  again  receiving  that 
Word  who  is  to  offer  Himself  to  him  as  the  '  Word  become  flesh.'  But 
if  man's  receiving  of  the  Word  be  thus  the  fulfilling  of  his  nature,  it 
is  his  duty  to  receive  Him  ;  and  this  duty  is  impressed  upon  him  by 
his  nature,  not  by  mere  external  authority.  Hence  the  constant  appeal 
of  Jesus  in  this  Gospel,  not  to  external  evidence  only,  but  to  that 
remaining  life  of  the  Word  within  us,  which  ought  to  receive  the  Word 
completely,  and  to  hasten  to  the  Light  (comp.  ver.  9). 

Ver.  5.  And  the  light  shineth  in  the  darkness.  The 
darkness  here  spoken  of  is  not  an  original  darkness  coexistent  with 
created  being  (ver.  3).  It  belongs  to  the  development  of  thought 
begun  at  ver.  4,  and  is  coexistent  only  with  the  moral  process  of 
rejecting  the  Word,  implied,  though  not  expressly  stated,  in  that 
verse.  The  Word  through  whom  all  come  into  being  offers  Himself 
at  the  same  time  to  all  as  their  light.  Let  them  acknowledge  and 
accept  Him,  they  have  life  (chap.  8  :  12) ;  let  them  reject  Him,  they 
are  in  darkness  for  which  they  are  responsible,  because  they  have 
chosen  it.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  many  always  did,  and  still  do, 
reject  the  light ;  and  thus  the  darkness  has  been  and  is  a  positively 
existing  thing.  Yet  the  light  has  not  forsaken  the  world.  Not  merely 
present  point  of  time  is  indicated  ;   in  that  case  John  could  not  have 


JOHN  I.  [1:  6. 


6  not.     There  came  a  man,  sent  from  God,  whose  name 

immecl lately  added  the  past  tense,  overcame.  The  idea  is  general. 
The  Light,  as  it  had  existed,  had  shone  ;  as  it  exists,  it  shines,  always 
seeking  to  draw  men  into  the  full  brightness  of  its  beams. — And  the 
darkuess  overcame  it  not.  Such  is  the  most  probable  meaning 
of  these  words,  and  so  were  they  understood  by  the  most  ancient 
Christian  writers.  The  verb  which  we  have  rendered  '  overcame ' 
occurs  not  unfrequently  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  (when  used,  as 
here,  in  the  active  voice)  it  has  not,  and  cannot  have,  the  meaning 
comprehend  [i.  e.  understand),  which  is  given  to  it  in  the  Authorized 
Version.  The  most  important  guide  to  the  meaning  is  chap.  12  :  35, 
where  the  same  word  is  used,  and  where  also  the  metaphor  is  similar: 
'  Walk  .  .  .  lest  darkness  overtake  you,' — come  over  you,  seize  you. 
In  the  verse  before  us  we  read  of  light  shining  in  the  darkness ;  the 
darkness,  ever  antagonistic  to  the  light,  yet  does  not  overtake  or  come 
over  the  light.  The  idea  of  seizing,  in  connection  with  this  figure,  is 
equivalent  to  overcoming  or  intercepting  the  light.  Even  if  '  compre- 
hend '  were  possible  as  a  translation,  it  would  be  nothing  to  tell  us 
that  the  darkness  did  not  comprehend  the  light.  That  is  implied  in  the 
fact  that  the  darkness  is  self-chosen  (comp.  on  ver.  4).  But  it  is  much 
to  tell  us  that,  in  the  conflict  between  the  darkness  and  the  light,  the 
darkness  failed  to  overcome  (or  eclipse)  the  light.  The  light,  though 
sometimes  apparently  overcome,  was  really  victorious ;  it  withstood 
every  assault,  and  shone  on  triumphantly  in  a  darkened  world.  So 
far,  therefore,  from  our  finding  here  a  'wail'  (as  some  have  said),  we 
have  a  note  of  exultation,  a  token  of  that  victory  which  throughout 
the  whole  Gospel  rises  to  our  view  through  sorrow.  We  thus  close 
■what  is  obviously  the  first  paragraph  of  the  Gospel ;  and  although  it 
relates  to  the  Pre-incarnate  AVord,  and  expresses  the  principles  of  His 
dealings  in  their  most  general  form,  the  development  of  thought  is 
precisely  the  same  as  that  which  the  history  of  the  Incarnate  Word 
"will  be  found  to  present.  Through  the  Word  all  things  have  come  into 
being.  To  all  He  offers  Himself,  that  He  may  make  them  not  only 
exist  in  Him,  but,  in  the  free  appropriation  of  what  He  offers,  live  in 
Him,  Some  receive  Him,  and  He  becomes  their  light;  others  reject 
Him,  and  are  immersed  in  the  darkness  which  they  choose.  The 
darkness  opposes  and  seeks  to  destroy  the  light,  but  the  light  shines 
on  to  victory. 

Ver.  6.  There  arose  a  man,  sent  from  God,  -whose  name 
"was  John.  With  this  verse  we  pass  forward  into  the  times  of  the 
Incarnate  Word.  The  section  upon  which  we  first  enter  is,  as  com- 
pared with  the  second,  general ;  hence  the  Incarnation  is  only  implied, 
not  expressly  mentioned.  The  immediate  preparation  for  this  new 
period  is  the  testimony  of  the  Baptist ;  and  the  words  with  which  he  is 
introduced  to  us  stand  in  striking  contrast  to  what  we  have  been  told 
of  the  Word  in  ver.  1.  He  'arose,' — literally,  he  'came  into  being,' 
as  distinguished  from  the  '  was '  of  that  verse.     He  was  a  man,  '  sent 


1:  7-8.]  JOHN  I.  9 

7  was  John.     The  same  came  for  witness,  that  he  might 
bear  witness  of  the  light,  that  all  might  believe  through 

8  him.     He  was  not  the  light,  but  came  that  he  might 

from  God,'  as  distinguished  from  the  Word  who  was  'with  God,'  In 
adding,  'his  name  was  John,'  tlie  Evangelist  (we  may  perhaps  say) 
does  more  than  identify  him  as  the  great  prophet  who  had  so  power- 
fully impressed  all  classes  of  the  people.  If  we  remember  the  deep 
siguifieance  attached  to  '  name '  in  this  Gospel,  it  will  seem  possible 
that  the  antithesis  to  ver.  1  is  still  continued.  The  personal  name 
needed  for  identification  amongst  men  is  placed  in  contrast  with  that 
name  by  which  the  eternal  attributes  of  the  Son  are  expressed,  ♦  the 
Word'  (comp.  ver.  12).  [It  is  significant  that  John  the  Evangelist 
calls  the  Baptist  simply  John,  without  the  title  given  him  by  the 
Synoptical  Evangelists  to  distinguish  him  from  the  son  of  Zebedee. 
One  of  the  many  indications  of  the  Johannean  orgin  of  the  Gospel. — 
Ei>.] 

Ver.  7.  The  same  came  for  witness,  that  he  might  bear 
witness  concerning  the  Light,  that  all  might  believe 
through  him.  The  impression  produced  by  the  Baptist  had  been 
great,  but  he  had  come  to  bear  witness  to  One  higher  than  himself. 
Here  we  meet  for  the  first  time  with  this  word  '  witness,'  one  of  the 
characteristic  words  of  the  writings  of  John,  occurring  in  various  forms 
nearly  fifty  times  in  his  Gospel,  and  thirty  or  forty  times  in  his  Epistles 
and  the  Apocalypse.  The  importance  of  the  thought  lies  in  its  simpli- 
city. The  true  witness  declares  what  he  has  seen  and  heard  (1  John 
1 :  2,  3) ;  his  testimony  reflects  '  the  truth  '  so  far  as  he  has  received  it, 
just  as  the  faithful  mirror  reflects  the  light  that  has  come  upon  it. 
John  came  to  bear  tuch  witness  concerning  the  Light,  that  through 
him  all  might  be  led  to  '  believe' — trustfully  to  accept  that  Light,  and 
yield  themselves  up  to  its  influence.  The  introduction  of  the  word 
'  all '  is  very  remarkable.  More  clearly  than  any  other  passage  this 
verse  teaches  us  how  great  were  the  results  which  the  Baptist's  mission 
was  intended  to  produce,  immeasurably  greater  than  those  which  were 
actually  realized.  Had  Israel  been  faithfully  and  obediently  waiting 
for  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  promise,  John's  witness  respecting 
Jesus  would  have  turned  'all'  Israel  (and,  through  Israel,  'all'  men) 
to  the  Saviour.  In  immediate  eff"ects  the  work  of  John,  like  that  of 
One  higher  than  John,  would  be  pronounced  by  men  a  failure.  In 
the  light  of  this  verse  we  can  better  understand  such  passages  as  Mai. 
4  ;  Matt.  11 :  0-U  ;   Luke  7  :  29,  30. 

Yer.  8  He  was  not  the  Light,  but  he  was  that  he  might 
bear  witness  concerning  the  Light.  The  thought  of  the 
greatness  of  the  witness  borne  by  John  underlies  the  words  of  this 
verse.  Great  as  the  Baptist  was,  he  was  not  the  Light.  What  he  was 
is  not  expressed,  but  only  the  purpose  which  he  was  to  fulfil  (comp. 
ver.  23).     It  is  very  possible  that  the  words  may  have  had  a  special 


10  JOHN  I.  [1:  9. 

9  bear  witness  of  the  light.     ^  There  was  the  true  light, 
even  the  light  which  lighteth  ^  every  man,  coming  into 

1  Or,  The  true  light,  vohich  lighteth  every  man,  teas  coming. 
*  Or,  every  man  as  he  cometh. 

application  to  the  opinions   which  (as   we  learn  from  Acts  18 :    25, 
19 :  3)  existed  at  Ephesus  with  regard  to  the  mission  of  John. 

Ver.  9.  There  "was  the  true  Light,  "which  lighteth  every 
man,  coming  into  the  world.  This  almost  literal  rendering  of 
the  Greek  will  show  how  it  is  that  these  simple  words  have  been  so 
variously  explained.  As  in  the  English,  so  in  the  Greek,  the  word 
♦coming'  might  be  joined  either  with  'light'  or  with  'man.'  The 
punctuation  we  have  adopted  (it  will  be  remembered  that  in  ancient 
manuscripts  of  the  original  there  is  little  or  no  punctuation)  will  show 
that,  in  our  view,  the  last  clause  is  to  be  joined,  not  with  the  second, 
but  with  the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  What  has  been  said  above  of 
the  general  structure  of  the  Prologue  has  shown  that,  as  yet,  the  full 
presence  of  the  Word  personally  come  is  not  before  us.  The  manifes- 
tation is  in  its  initial  stage,  not  yet  complete.  To  this  thought  the 
word  'coming'  exactly  corresponds.  But  still  more  important  in 
guiding  to  the  right  interpretation  of  the  verse  is  the  Evangelist's  use 
of  the  last  phrase  elsewhere.  The  expression  'come  into  the  world' 
occurs  in  as  many  as  seven  other  passages  of  this  Gospel  (chap.  3:19, 
6:  14;  9:  39,  11:27;  12:  46;  16:  28;  18:  37).  In  everyone  of 
these  passages  the  words  relate  to  the  Lord  Himself :  sometimes  they 
are  used  by  the  multitude  (6:  14),  or  by  a  disciple  (11:  27),  as  a 
designation  of  the  Messiah,  '  He  that  should  come  ;'  sometimes  tliey 
are  the  words  of  Jesus  or  of  the  Evangelist,  in  passages  which  speak 
of  the  purpose  of  His  'coming.'  In  chaps.  3:  19  "and  12:  46  the 
phrase  stands  in  close  connection  with  the  figure  which  is  now  before 
ns.  The  latter  verse  (chap.  12:46)  is  especially  noteworthy;  for 
Jesus  Himself  says,  '  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world.'  If,  then,  we 
would  allow  the  Evangelist  to  be  his  own  interpreter,  we  seem  bound 
to  believe  that  he  here  speaks  of  the  liffht  as  '  coming  into  the  world.' 
If  the  words  are  joined  with  'man.'  they  add  little  or  nothing  to  the 
thought.  '  Every  man '  is  really  as  full  and  inclusive  an  expression 
as  '  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world.'  Familiarity  with  the 
common  rendering  may  prevent  the  reader  from  at  once  perceiving 
that  this  is  true ;  but  we  are  persuaded  that  reflection  will  show  that 
by  the  change  much  is  gained,  nothing  lost.  In  the  previous  verse 
we  have  read  that  John  was  not  'the  Light.'  When  he  'arose'  as  a 
witness,  the  true  Light  was  in  existence ;  it  had  been  shining  in  the 
darkness ;  it  was  now  '  coming  into  the  world,' — about  to  manifest 
itself  with  a  clearness  and  in  a  manner  hitherto  unknown.  Two  more 
of  the  special  terms  of  the  Gospel  meet  us  here,  '  true  '  and  '  world.* 
It  is  unfortunate  that  two  different  words  must  be  represented  by  the 
same  English  word,  'true.'     The  one  (used  in  chaps.  3:  33;  5:  31, 


1:  10.]  JOHN  I.  11 

10  the  world.     He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was 

and  eleven  other  verses  of  the  Gospel)  denotes  truth  in  contrast  with 
falsehood ;  the  other,  which  we  have  before  us  here,  expresses  the  real 
as  contrasted  with  the  phenomenal,  that  which  is  perfect  and  substan- 
tial as  opposed  to  what  is  imperfect  and  shadowy,  or  that  which  is 
fully  accomplished  in  contrast  with  the  type  which  prefigured  it.  This 
word  is,  in  the  New  Testament,  almost  confined  to  the  writings  of 
John.  Of  twenty-eight  passages  in  which  it  occurs,  nine  are  found  in 
this  Gospel,  four  in  the  First  Epistle,  ten  in  the  Revelation.  Three  of 
the  remaining  five  passages  are  (as  might  almost  have  been  foreseen) 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  other  examples  of  the  word  in  this 
Gospel  will  be  found  in  chaps.  4 :  2].  37;  0  :  32  ;  7:  28;  8:  16; 
15:  1;  17:  3  ;  19:  35,  and  in  most  of  these  the  reader  will  easily 
trace  the  idea.  The  'true  worshippers'  are  tho-e  whose  worship  is 
real,  not  imperfect  and  undeserving  of  the  name ;  the  bread  which 
came  down  from  heaven  is  '  the  true  bread,'  that  of  which  the  manna 
was  a  type,  that  which  ministers  real  and  abiding  nourishment.  So 
here  we  read  of  the  archetypal  source  of  light,  the  light  which  alone  is 
real  and  perfect. — This  true  Light  was  coming  into  the  'world.' 
Originally  signifying  the  universe  created  and  ordered  by  the  hand  of 
God,  '  the  world '  came  successively  to  mean  the  world  of  men,  and  the 
world  of  men  as  opposed  to  God.  In  this  Gospel  especially,  we  read 
of  the  world  as  an  antagonistic  power,  unbelieving,  evil  in  its  works, 
hating  and  persecuting  Jesus  and  His  people, — a  power  over  which  He 
will  be  victorious,  and  which  shall  be  convicted  of  sin  and  judged ;  but 
we  also  read  of  God's  love  to  the  world  (chap.  3  :  16),  and  of  the  gift 
of  His  Son  that  the  world  may  be  saved  through  Him.  If  the  thought 
of  evil  and  alienation  is  brought  out  in  the  following  verse,  it  is  most 
important  to  observe  that  this  verse  speaks  of  the  illumination  of  every 
man.  No  man  belongs  to  the  world  that  is  given  up  to  darkness  and 
impenitence,  unless  he,  through  resistance  and  choice  of  evil,  have 
made  the  light  that  was  in  him  to  become  darkness  (comp.  Eph.  4 : 
18). — We  cannot  doubt  that  in  the  words  'every  man'  there  is  an 
allusion  to  John  ('a  man  sent  from  God')  as  himself  illumined  by  this 
Light. 

Ver.  10.  He  was  in  the  -world,  and  the  world  came  into 
being  through  him,  and  the  world  knew  him  not.  The  sub- 
ject is  still  the  Light,  which  (ver.  9)  was  existent,  and  was  'coming 
into  the  world.'  In  the  world,  indeed,  it  was  already  (though  the 
complete  manifestation  was  yet  to  come),  and— here  the  figure  passes 
imperceptibly  away,  giving  place  to  the  thought  of  the  Person — the 
world,  though  brought  into  being  through  Him,  recognized  not  His 
presence.  Note  the  simplicity  of  John's  style,  in  which  the  three 
thoughts  of  the  verse,  thoufirh  very  various  in  their  mutual  relations, 
are,  so  to  speak,  placed  side  by  side.  These  words  relate  both  to  the 
Pre-incarnate  and  to  the  Incarnate  Word.  The  development  is  rather 
of  thought  than  of  time.     Alike  before  His  manifestation  in  the  flesh 


12  JOHN  I.  [1:  11-12. 

11  made  ^  by  *  hira,  and  the  world  knew  him  not.     He 
came   unto  ^his  own,  and   they  that  were   his   own 

12  received  him  not.     But  as  many  as  received  him,  to 
them  gave  he  the  right  to  become   children  of  God, 

1  Or,  througli.  -  Gr.  hh  own  things. 

*  Substitute  the  margiual  rendering  fur  the  text.— ^m.  Com. 

and  after  it,  the  Word  was  *  in  the  world.'  The  statement  must  not 
be  limited  to  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  Israel.  This  verse  is  a 
repetition,  in  a  more  concrete  form,  of  vers.  3-5  (in  part). 

Ver,  11.  He  came  unto  his  o-wn  home,  and  his  own  ac- 
cepted him  not.  Is  this  verse  practically  a  repetition  of  ver.  10, 
in  language  more  solemn  and  emphatic  ?  Or  do  we  here  pass  from  the 
thought  of  the  world  in  general  to  that  of  the  Jewish  people?  The 
question  is  one  of  some  dithculty.  As  ver.  12  is  certainly  quite  general 
in  its  meaning,  it  may  seem  hazardous  to  introduce  a  limitation  here. 
But  the  weight  of  argumeiit  seems  on  the  whole  to  be  on  the  other 
side.  There  is  a  manifest  advance  of  thought  as  we  pass  from  the  last 
verse  to  this.  Instead  of  '  He  was  in,'  we  find  '  He  came  unto  ;'  for 
'the  world,'  we  have  'His  own  home;'  for  'knew'  (perceived  or 
recognized),  we  have  '  accepted.'  Every  change  seems  to  point  to  a 
more  intimate  relationship,  a  clearer  manifestation,  and  a  rejection 
that  is  still  more  without  excuse.  The  Word,  who  was  in  the  world 
(comp.  Prov.  8:  31),  had  His  home  with  the  chosen  people  (Ex. 
19:  5;  Ps.  76:  2),  to  which  had  been  given  the  revelation  of  the 
truth  of  God  (Rom.  9:  4).  It  is  still  mainly  of  the  Pre-incarnate 
Word  that  John  speaks.  In  the  whole  history  of  Israel  had  been 
illustrated  unfaithfidness  to  the  truth  (comp.  Luke  11:  49,  50;  Acts 
7:  51-53);  and  the  tender  pathos  of  this  verse  recalls  the  words  in 
which  Jesus  speaks  of  the  rejection  of  Himself  (Matt.  23  :  37). 

Ver.  12.  But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
right  to  become  children  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe 
in  his  name.  We  have  beheld  the  light  shining  in  the  darkness 
(vers.  10,  11) ;  the  thought  of  this  verse  is,  that  the  darkness  overcame 
it  not !  As  we  have  already  seen  (see  note  on  ver.  11),  the  language 
again  becomes  altogether  general.  Whosoever  'received  Him,'  to 
whatever  period  of  time  or  nation  they  might  belong,  won  the  gift  here 
spoken  of.  There  is  a  perceptible  diiference  between  '  accepted '  (ver. 
11)  and  '  received,'  as  here  used.  Whilst  the  former  lays  emphasis  on 
the  will  that  consented  (or  refused)  to  receive,  the  latter  brings  before 
us  the  possession  gained  ;  so  that  the  full  meaning  is,  As  many  as  by 
accepting  Him  received  Him.  The  gift  is  not  directly  stated  as  '  son- 
ship.'  perhaps  because  the  full  manifestation  of  this  blessing  belongs  to 
the  latter,  days  alone  (comp  on  chaps  3:  5;  7:  39;  Rom.  8:  15), 
whereas  the  Evangelist  would  here  include  the  time  of  incomplete 
revelation  which  came  before  the  Incarnation.  Then,  as  now,  men 
accepted  or  refused  Him ;   but  for  those  who  accepted  was  reserved 


1  :  13.]  JOHN  I.  13 

13  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name :  which  were 
^born,  not  of  ^  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor 

1  Or,  begotten.  2  Gr.  hloods. 

'some  better  thing'  (Heb.  11:  40)  than  had  yet  been  clearly  made 
known  to  man. — We  must  not  fail  to  note  (for  in  these  wonderful  verses 
everything  is  significant)  that  there  is  special  fitness  in  the  expression 
*  children'  rather  than  '  sons  of  God;'  for,  whereas  '  sonship  '  is  often 
spoken  of  in  connection  with  mere  adoption,  stress  is  here  laid  on  an 
actual  (though  spiritual)  paternity.  The  right  or  authority  thus  to 
become  children  of  God  is  given  by  the  Word  '  to  them  that  believe  in 
His  name.'  It  is  very  important  to  discriminate  between  the  diiferent 
phrases  which  John  uses  in  relation  to  belief  or  faith.  On  the  one 
hand  we  have  the  simple  expression  'to  believe  Him'  (as  in  chaps. 
8 :  31 ;  5 :  38,  etc.),  usually  denoting  the  acceptance  of  something  said 
as  true.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find  very  frequently  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  especially  in  the  writings  of  John,  a  remarkable  com- 
bination of  'believe'  with  a  preposition  literally  meaning  'into,'  by 
which  is  denoted  not  merely  an  acceptance  of  woi'ds  or  professions, 
but  such  an  acceptance  of  the  Person  trusted,  such  an  approach  of  the 
heart  towards  Him,  as  leads  to  union  with  Him.  This  peculiarly 
Christian  formula  is  by  some  rendered  '  believe  in,'  by  others  '  believe 
on.'  Both  renderings  are  found  in  the  Authorized  Version.  We  have 
uniformly  adopted  the  former,  because  it  most  clearly  indicates  the 
union  towards  which  the  faith  tends. — There  are  a  few  passages  (see  ch. 
2  :  23 ;  3 :  18 ;  and  John  5 :  13)  in  which,  as  here,  this  phrase  '  believe  in' 
is  followed  by  '  the  name.'  We  have  already  seen  with  what  fulness  of 
meaning  John  uses  the  word  '  name.'  As  in  many  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  the  '  name '  expresses  the  sum  of  the  qualities  which  mark 
the  nature  or  character  of  a  person  (comp.  Ex.  84:  5,  6).  It  is  hard 
to  fix  the  precise  distinction  between  'believing  in  Him'  and  'believ- 
ing in  His  name.'  Perhaps  we  may  say  that,  in  the  former  case,  the 
believer  trustfully  yields  himself  up  to  the  Person,  in  the  latter,  to  the 
revelation  of  the  Person.  Those  who  in  chap. 2:  23  are  spoken  of  as 
believing  'in  the  name'  of  Jesus,  had  not  reached  the  personal  union 
which  believing  in  Jesus  implies ;  but  through  their  trustful  accept- 
ance of  His  revelation  of  Himself,  the  higher  gift,  the  closer  know- 
ledge, might  soon  be  gained.  Here  the  '  name'  cannot  but  recall  ver. 
1:  the  'name'  Word  expressed  the  nature  of  the  Person  (comp. 
ver.  G). 

Ver.  13.  Whicli  -were  begotten,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the 
will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God.  The 
spiritual  history  of  those  who  are  spoken  of  in  ver.  12  is  here  contin- 
ued, and  the  nature  of  their  sonship  more  fully  defined.  It  is  easy  to 
see  that  in  the  three'clauses  there  is  a  distinct  progress  of  thought,  the 
second  (containing  the  thought  of  '  will')  being  more  definite  than  the 
first,  the  third  (in  which  'man'  is  substituted  for  'flesh,' — a  person 


14  JOHN  I.  [1 :  14. 


14  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God.  And  the  word 
became  flesh,  and  Mwelt  among  us  (and  we  beheld 
his  glory,  glory  as  of  ^the  only  begotten  from  the 

1  Gr.  tabernacled.  '  Or,  an  only  begotten  from  a  father. 

for  human  nature  in  general)  being  again  more  definite  than  the  se- 
cond. The  three  clauses,  however,  really  express  but  one  main  idea ; 
•what  that  is  must  be  learnt  from  the  contrast  in  the  closing  words — 
'  but  (they  were  begotten)  of  God.'  These  believers  have  received  the 
right  to  become  '  children  of  God '  by  virtue  of  a  true  spiritual  filia- 
tion, being  begotten  of  God.  The  contrast  to  such  a  sonship  is  the 
very  claim  which  is  so  strongly  made  by  the  Jews  in  chap.  8,  and  the 
validity  of  which  our  Lord  altogether  denies.  The  recollection  of  that 
chapter,  which  only  brings  into  bold  relief  the  habitual  assumption  of 
the  Judaism  of  that  day,  will  be  sufficient  to  explain  the  remarkable 
emphasis  of  this  verse,  the  threefold  denial  that  men  become  children 
of  God  by  virtue  of  any  natural  hereditary  descent. — Although  it  is 
the  claim  of  the  Jews  that  is  here  in  the  writer's  thought,  yet,  as  often 
elsewhere,  the  Jews  are  the  type  of  the  world  at  large ;  by  others  be- 
sides Jews  like  presumptuous  claims  have  been  made,  others  have 
rested  in  the  '  divinity'  of  their  race.  It  is  very  possible  that  the  pe- 
culiarity of  the  first  clause  (literally  'not  of  bloods')  may  be  thus  ex- 
plained. 

Ver.  14.  And  the  Word  became  flesh.  With  this  verse  we 
enter  upon  the  fuller  and  more  concrete  aspect  of  the  Word  appearing 
among  men.  As  personally  come  in  the  flesh,  however,  the  Word  con- 
trasts with  what  He  was  in  His  pre-existent  state;  and  hence,  before 
we  have  the  Baptist  introduced  to  us,  we  have  statements  exactly  par- 
allel to  those  of  vers.  1-5.  That  now  before  us  corresponds  to  ver.  1, 
for  the  Incarnate  Word  in  Himself  is  here  spoken  of.  He  who  was  in 
the  beginning,  who  was  with  God,  who  was  God,  '  became  flesh ; '  did 
not  merely  take  to  Him  a  human  body,  did  not  merely  become  an  in- 
dividual man,  but  assumed  human  nature  in  its  entireness  (see  chaps. 
12:  27.  'soul;'  13:  21.  'spirit'),  identified  Himself  with  the  race,  en- 
tered into  such  a  condition  that  He  could  have  perfect  communion  and 
fellowship  with  us,  and  we  with  Him.  The  word  '  became '  does  not 
denote  that  His  divine  nature  was  laid  aside,  and  that  His  mode  of 
being  was  simply  human  until,  in  the  accomplishment  of  His  work,  He 
gradually  transformed  His  human  mode  of  being  and  regained  for  it 
all  the  glory  of  the  divine.  Were  such  a  view  correct,  it  would  follow 
that  when  the  divine  was  regained  the  human  was  laid  aside,  and  that 
the  humanity  of  the  exalted  Redeemer  is  not  now  as  real  as  it  was 
during  His  earthly  course.  No  such  thought  is  suggested  by  *  be- 
came; '  for  this  word  does  not  imply  that  the  former  state  of  being  ex- 
ists no  longer.  What  is  really  indicated  is  th&  passing  into  a  new 
state, — a  transition  rather  than  a  transformation.  The  Word  re- 
mains, with  all  His  essential  properties;  there  is  added  a  new  mode  of 


1:  14.]  JOHN  I.  15 

being,  the  assumption  of  a  new  nature,  denoted  by  '  flesh.'  The  most 
impoBtant  parallels  to  this  verse  are  1  John,  4:  2,  and  2  John,  7  ;  these 
passages  differ  from  the  present  in  that  the  historical  name  'Jesus 
Christ '  is  substituted  for  the  Word,  and  that  for  the  mysterious  words 
'became  flesh'  we  read  'hath  come'  (or  'cometh')  'in  flesh.' — And 
he  set  his  tabernacle  among  us,  and  we  beheld  his  glory 
(glory  as  of  an  only  begotten  from  a  father), — full  of  grace 
and  truth.  As  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  corresponded  to  verse  1, 
so  these  clauses  correspond  to  vers.  2-5;  only  that,  whereas  there  we 
had  those  properties  of  the  Word  in  virtue  of  which  He  gives  life  and 
light  in  their  most  general  form  to  all,  here  we  have  those  in  virtue  of 
which,  as  the  now  completed  revelation  of  the  Father,  He  carries  this 
life  and  light  onward  to  perfection  in  such  as  truly  receive  Him.  Still, 
however,  it  is  the  glory  of  the  Word  in  Himself  that  is  before  us ;  if 
men  are  introduced  in  the  words  which  follow  as  beholders  of  His 
glory,  it  is  that  our  thought  may  rest,  not  on  the  blessing  man  thus 
receives  (that  is  expressed  below,  vers.  16-18),  but  on  the  witness 
borne  to  the  glory  of  the  Incarnate  Word.  Ihe  figure  of  this  verse  is 
taken  from  the  Old  Testament  (Lev.  26:  11;  Ezek.  37:  27,  etc.);  the 
Tabernacle  was  the  meeting-place  of  God  and  Israel,  the  house  in 
which  Jehovah  dwelt  in  the  midst  of  His  people.  With  the  image  of 
a  tent  or  tabernacle  is  often  associated  the  thought  of  transitoriness  ; 
but  that  the  word  used  here  does  not  necessarily  carry  with^t  this 
thought  is  sufficiently   proved   by  the  language  of  the  final  promise, 

*  The  tabernacle  of  God  is  with  men,  and  He  shall  set  His  tabernacle 
with  them.'  (Rev.  21  :  3).  As  the  Shechinah  dwelt  in  the  Tabernacle, 
in  the  midst  of  the   camp  of  Israel,  so  'the  Word  become  flesh'  dwelt 

*  among  us.'  Some  have  taken  the  last  words  to  mean  '  in  us,'  and  to 
contain  a  new  reference  to  the  assumption  of  human  nature ;  but  this 
view  seems  plainly  inconsistent  with  the  words  which  follow,  'we  be- 
held His  glory,'  the  meaning  of  which  is  fixed  by  the  opening  passage 
in  the  First  Epistle  (1  John  1  :  1-3).  The  glory  was  like  that  of  an 
only  son  sent  from  a  father ;  no  image  but  this,  it  has  been  well  said, 
'can  express  the  two-fold  character  of  the  glory,  as  at  once  derivative 
and  on  a  level  with  its  source,'  In  the  only  son  are  concentrated  all 
the  characteristics  of  the  father;  on  him  all  the  father's  love  is  poured ; 
to  him  belongs  the  whole  inheritance  ;  on  him  the  father,  when  he  sends 
him  forth  on  an  embassy,  bestows  all  the  plenitude  of  his  power.  The 
translation  we  have  given  is,  we  believe,  that  which  the  Greek  words 
absolutely  demand;  it  appears  to  us,  moreover,  to  be  the  only  render- 
ing that  gives  meaning  to  the  word  of  comparison  'as,'  or  preserves 
the  progress  of  the  Evangelist's  thought.  As  yet  there  has  been  no 
word  bringing  in  the  thought  of  Divine  Sonship.  The  attributes  and 
working  of  the  Divine  Word  have  been  continually  before  us ;  here  the 
glory  of  the  Word  become  flesh  is  compared  with  that  of  an  only  son 
sent  from  a  father ;  but  it  is  not  until  ver.  18  that  these  elements  are 
combined  into  one  supreme  utterance  of  truth.  The  last  words  of  the 
verse  must  be  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  sentence:  'He  (the 


16  JOHN  I.  [1:  15. 

15  Father),   full   of  grace   and    truth.      John    beareth 
witness  of  him,  and  crieth,  saying,  VThis  was  he  of 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  {this  was  he  that  said). 

Word)  set  His  tabernacle  among  us,  full  of  grace  and  truth.'  They  go 
far  towards  explaining  the  'glory'  which  the  disciples  'beheld.' 
That  the  Word  has  been  from  the  beginning  of  the  woi-ld's  history  the 
bestower  of  'grace  and  truth'  is  implied  in  the  imagery  of  the  earlier 
verses  (vers.  4,  9) ;  that  which  has  been  involved  in  the  teaching  re- 
specting the  pre-incarnate  Word  is  clearly  stated  here  of  the  Word  be- 
come flesh.  But  this  fulness  of  grace  and  truth  does  not  exhaust  the 
meaning  of  the  '  glory.'  In  the  glory  of  the  Incarnate  Word  there  are 
two  elements,  as  His  one  Person  unites  two  natures:  in  part  the  glory 
is  unique  (in  kind  and  not  only  in  degree),  belonging  to  the  God-man 
and  not  to  the  perfect  Man ;  in  part  it  is  communicable  to  men,  as 
Jesus  Himself  says,  '  The  glory  which  Thou  gavest  me  I  have  given 
them.' 

Ver.  15.  John  beareth  -witness  concerning  him,  and  hath 
cried,  saying.  This  was  he  of  whom  I  spake.  He  that  com- 
eth  after  me  has  become  before  me,  because  he  w^as  before 
me.  We  have  seen  that  ver.  14  is  parallel  to  vers.  1-5.  In  like  man- 
ner this  verse  is  parallel  to  vers.  6-8  ;  but  it  is  also  an  advance  upon 
those  verses  containing  the  Baptist's  witness  to  the  Personal  Word  be- 
come flesh,  not  to  the  Word  as  the  general  Light  of  men. — 'Beareth 
witness,'  not  'bare  witness'  (ver.  32).  It  is  as  if  the  Evangelist 
would  say,  Of  this  John  is  the  witness ;  his  testimony  abides,  un- 
changing, always  present.  The  same  thought  comes  out  more  distinctly 
still  in  the  verb  which  follows,  '  hath  cried.'  (The  usual  translation 
'  crieth'  seems  on  vai'ious  grounds  less  probable.)  The  loud  cry  of  the 
faithful  witness  has  come  down  through  all  the  years ;  we  seem  to  hear 
its  echoes  still.  The  Baptist  clearly  refers  to  witness  which  he  had 
borne  after  Jesus  appeared;  hence  the  words,  '  This  ivas  he.'  It  is  un- 
usually difficult  to  find  a  rendering  that  will  fully  convey  the  meaning 
of  this  verse.  As  the  word  'before'  occurs  in  two  members  of  the 
verse,  the  English  reader  inevitably  considers  the  contrast  to  be  be- 
tween 'is  preferred'  (or  'is  become')  and  'he  was.'  In  reality,  'be- 
fore' here  answers  to  two  different  words.  A  literal  translation  will 
show  at  once  the  meaning  and  the  difficulty  of  finding  an  easy  expres- 
sion of  the  meaning  :  '  He  that  cometh  behind  me  has  become  in  front 
of  me,  because  he  was  before  me.'  Jesus  came  '  after '  or  '  behind ' 
John,  as  coming  later  in  His  manifestation  to  the  world.  As  the  later 
in  time,  it  might  have  been  expected  that  He  would  take  rank  after 
him  who  was  His  predecessor  ;  but  He  has  been  advanced  before 
John;  the  reason  of  this  is  given  in  John's  declaration,  '  He  was  be- 
fore me.'  That  which  these  words  directly  affirm  is  priority  of  time; 
but,  as  in  respect  of  human  birth  this  could  not  be  affirmed  of  Jesus, 
the  words  bring  into  view  a  pre-existence  so  transcendent  as  of  itself 
to  assert  an  infinite  superiority  to  every  other  man.     This  anterior 


1 :  16.]  JOHN  I.  17 

whom  I  said,  He  that  cometh  after  me  is  become  before 
16  me  :  for  he  was  ^  before  me.     For  of  his  fulness  we  all 

1  Gr.  first  in  regard  of  me. 

dignity  explains  why  He  that  followed  John  has  come  to  be  before 
Him.  The  herald  came  first  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  King  ;  when 
the  King  arrives,  the  herald  retires  from  view.  The  last  words  of  the 
verse  require  further  notice.  They  are  not  fully  represented  by  *  be- 
fore me,'  as  if  they  contained  nothing  beyond  a  comparison  of  Jesus 
with  the  Baptist.  The  former  word  is  absolute,  '  He  was  first ; '  the 
other  word  is  added  because  a  comparison  is  needed,  *  first  in  regard 
of  me.'  We  might  almost  paraphrase  the  very  remarkable  combination 
thus  :  First,  and  (by  consequence)  before  me. 

Ver.  16.  Because  out  of  his  fulness  we  all  received,  and 
grace  for  grace.  In  order  to  understand  this  verse,  and  especially 
the  very  difficult  word  '  because,'  with  which  the  true  reading  of  the 
verse  begins,  we  must  look  at  the  structure  of  the  whole  passage. 
Along  with  vers.  17  and  18,  this  verse  is  parallel  to  vers.  9-13;  and 
ver.  14,  as  we  have  seen,  answers  to  vers.  1-5.  The  last  verse  in  like 
manner  stands  related  to  vers.  6-8 ;  and,  as  these  verses  are  intro- 
duced between  ver.  5  and  ver.  9, — which  might  be  read  continuously, 
the  subject  remaining  the  same,— so  is  ver.  15  almost  parenthetical, 
bringing  in  (as  in  the  earlier  verses)  the  witness  of  John  before  the 
statement  of  the  results  following  the  manifestation  of  the  Word.  The 
words  '  we  all  received'  and  *  His  fulness'  are  sufficient  to  show  that 
the  verse  is  a  continuation  of  the  thought  cf  ver.  14,  and  belongs  to 
the  Evangelist,  not  to  the  Baptist.  If,  then,  ver,  15  is  parenthetical, 
the  present  verse  is  naturally  introduced  by  the  word  '  because.'  We 
have  here  an  illustration  of  the  extreme  importance  which  John  at- 
taches to  Christian  experience.  In  ver.  9  we  have  had  the/aci  of  what 
the  Word  bestows.  Here  we  have  more.  We  have  the  answer  of 
Christian  experience  to  the  fact.  We  have  not  merely  the  light  light- 
ening, but  the  light  appropriated,  its  value  appreciated,  its  power 
felt.  Verse  14  had  not  described  Christian  experience.  The  word  '  be- 
held' there  used  had  only  assumed  it  (see  the  comment),  and  had 
mentioned  the  witness  which  it  gave.  Now  we  have  the  description 
itself:  hence  the  '  because.'  We  beheld  the  glory  of  the  Word  become 
flesh,  and  are  able  to  speak  of  that  glory,  '  became  out  of  His  fulness,' 
etc.  The  last  stage  of  the  Prologue  is  thus  reached,  because  the  high- 
est point  of  thought  is  attained.  No  more  can  be  paid  when  the  ap- 
propriation of  the  Word  is  complete.  The  fulness  spoken  of  is  that  of 
grace  and  truth,  which  so  reside  in  the  Incarnate  Word  that  nothing 
more  can  be  added.  It  is  an  absolute,  not  a  comparative  fulness, — a 
proof  again  that  no  part  of  that  fulness  is  to  be  won  back  in  the  pro- 
gress of  the  Messianic  work.  That  fulness  resides  in  the  'Word  be- 
come flesh,'  as  such.  '  Out  of '  it  '  we  all' — believers  who  beheld  His 
glory,  among  whom  He  set  His  tabernacle — received.  The  thing  is 
past.     We  received  Him  (ver.  12).     When  we  received  Him,  He  com- 


18  JOHN  I.  [1 :  17-18. 

17  received,  and  grace  for  grace.     For  the  law  was  given 
iby*  Moses;  grace  and  truth  came  ^by  Jesus  Christ. 

18  No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time ;  ^  the  only  begot- 

1  Or,  through.  -  Many  very  ancient  authorities  read  God  only  begotten. 

♦Substitute  the  marginal  rendering  for  the  text. — Am.  Com. 

municated  Himself  to  us.  His  fulness,  so  far  as  we  could  receive  it, 
was  made  ours.  Hence  it  is  not  said  what  we  received ;  because  it 
was  not  a  gift  bestowed  by  His  fulness,  but  the  measure  of  that  ful- 
ness itself  which  we  were  capable  of  receiving.  We  are  thus  led  also 
to  the  clear  meaning  of  the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  '  and  grace  for 
grace.'  Not  exactly  '  grace  upon  grace,'  as  if  the  meaning  were  suc- 
cessive measures  of  grace,  one  added  to  another ;  but  grace  given  in 
fresh  measure  as  each  preceding  measure  has  been  improved,  the  '  ful- 
ness' constantly  more  and  more  made  ours  until  we  'are  fulfilled 
unto  all  the  fulness  of  God'  (Eph.  3:  19).  It  is  Christian  experience 
again. 

Ver.  17.  Because  the  la-w  -was  given  through  Moses : 
grace  and  truth  came  through  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  very  possi- 
ble that  this  verse  should  be  taken  as  directly  parallel  to  ver.  11  ; 
hence  the  definite  reference  to  the  Y)re-Christian  revelation  here  (see 
note  on  ver.  11).  The  thought  of  Christian  experience  again  explains 
the  connection  of  this  verse  with  the  preceding.  The  law  is  not  un- 
dervalued. It  was  divine.  It  was  a  gift  of  God.  It  was  a  gift 
through  the  great  Lawgiver  of  whom  Israel  was  proud.  But  it  was  a 
fixed,  unalterable  thing,  with  definite  boundaries,  not  stretching  out 
into  the  illimitable  and  eternal.  It  could  not  express  unbounded 
grace  and  truth,  unbounded  Jove,  because  in  its  very  nature  law  has 
limits  which  it  cannot  pass.  Now,  however,  there  has  'come'  (a  far 
higher  word  than  'was  given')  a  fulness  of  grace  and  truth,  within 
which  we  stand,  and  which  we  are  to  appropriate  more  and  more, — 
vast,  illimitable,  as  is  that  God  who  is  love.  Hence,  therefore,  the 
experience  of  ver.  16  is  possible.  It  will  be  noted  that  the  two  thoughts 
of  this  verse  are  placed  side  by  side  (see  ver.  10),  though  in  reality 
the  first  is  subordinate  to  the  second.  And  now  comes  in  the  great 
Name  as  jet  unnamed,  but  named  now  in  all  the  universality  of  its 
application,  the  Name  which  embraces  historical  Christianity  in  its 
whole  extent  as  the  religion  both  of  Jew  and  Gentile,  the  religion  of 
man, — the  name  which,  in  its  one  half  ('Jesus,'  Joshua,  Jehoshua, 
'Jehovah  is  Salvation,')  expresses  the  purpose  of  all  God's  dealings 
with  man,  and  in  its  other  half  ('Christ')  the  divine  consecration  of 
the  Redeemer  to  His  work.  The  verbs  of  this  verse  are  used  with 
great  propriety, — 'was  given'  of  what  was  incidental  in  origin  and 
temporary  in  duration  ;  '  came'  (literally  '  became')  of  what,  though 
revealed  in  time,  was  an  eternal  reality.  One  reflection  alone  remains, 
and  then  the  Prologue  may  close. 

Ver.  18.     No  one  hath  seen  God  at  any  time  ;  One  -who  is 
only  begotten  God,  he  that  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 


1:  18.]  JOHN  I.  19 

ten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath 
declared  him. 

he  declared  him.  It  is  not  possible  in  a  commentary  such  as  this 
to  defend  the  reading  which  we  here  adopt,  'God'  instead  of  'Son.' 
But  the  passage  is  so  extremely  important  that  we  may  be  permitted 
for  once  to  depart  from  our  usual  practice  of  not  referring  to  other 
writers,  and  to  commend  to  our  readers  one  of  the  finest  critical  Dis- 
sertations ever  published  in  any  language  upon  a  reading  of  the  New 
Testament.  We  refer  t3  that  by  Dr.  Hort  of  Cambridge  upon  this 
text  (London,  1876).  We  add  only  that  by  thus  reading  we  pre- 
serve an  important  characteristic  of  the  structural  principles  of  our 
Evangelist,  that  which  leads  him  at  the  close  of  a  section  or  a  period 
to  return  to  its  beginning.  The  word  '  God '  here  corresponds  to  '  God' 
in  ver.  1,  'No  one  hath  seen  God  at  any  time.'  The  contrast  is  to 
'we  beheld'  in  ver.  14,  and  the  words  describe  God  in  his  nature  as 
God;  He  dwelleth  in  light  that  is  inaccessible.  The  soul  longs  to  see 
Him,  but  this  cannot  be.  Is,  then,  its  longing  vain,  its  cry  unheard? 
The  Evangelist  answers,  No.  One  has  'declared'  Him,  has,  as  the 
Word,  unfolded  and  explained  Him.  And  the  glorious  fitness  of  the 
Word  to  do  this  is  pointed  out  in  three  pai-ticulars,  all  showing  how 
fitly  He  could  do  that  which  none  other  could  do.  (1)  He  is  'only 
begotten,'  Son  among  all  other  sons  in  His  own  peculiar  sense,  who  is 
fully  able  to  repi-esent  the  Father,  to  whom  all  the  perfections  of  the 
Father  flow.  (2)  He  is  God,  not  only  Son,  but,  as  Son,  God, — Him- 
self divine,  not  in  a  metaphorical  sense,  but  possessing  all  the  attri- 
butes of  true  and  real  divinity.  (3)  It  is  He  who  '  is  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Father.'  The  climax  of  thought,  and  the  consideration  that  here 
are  mentioned  the  conditions  which  make  it  possible  for  .Jesus  to  be 
the  complete  Interpreter  of  the  Father,  preclude  our  taking  these 
words  as  referring  to  the  state  which  succeeded  the  resurrection  and 
ascension, — in  the  sense,  '  He  that  hath  returned  to  the  bosom  of  the 
Father.'  He  of  whom  the  Evangelist  speaks  is  more  than  '  only  be- 
gotten,' more  than  '  God.'  He  is  '  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father.'  In 
Him  God  is  revealed  as  a  Father;  without  Him  He  can  be  revealed 
only  as  God.  The  words  thus  include  more  than  'with  God'  in  ver. 
1,  more  than  the  Divine  self-communion,  the  communion  of  God  with 
God.  The  fatherly  element,  the  element  of  love,  is  here.  Out  of  that 
element  of  love,  or  of  grace  and  truth,  the  Son  comes ;  into  it  He  re- 
turns. It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  His  being  so  to  do.  He  did  so 
from  eternity.  He  did  so  in  time.  He  shall  do  it  in  the  eternity  to 
come.  Not  less  does  it  belong  to  the  profoundest  depths  of  His  nature 
to  do  so,  than  to  be  '  only  begotten,'  to  be  '  God.'  Therefore  is  He 
fully  qualified  to  declare  the  Father,  whom  to  know  as  thus  made 
known  in  Jesus  Christ  (ver.  17)  is  that  '  eternal  life'  after  which  the 
heart  of  man  feels,  and  in  the  pos-ession  of  Avhich  alone  is  it  com- 
pletely blessed  (comp.  17:  3  ;  2!J:  31).  One  remark  has  still  to  be 
made  upon  a  point  which  may  seem  at  first  sight  to  interfere  with  the 


20  JOHN  I.  [1:  19. 

Chapter  I.     19-34. 

The  Witness  of  the  Baptist  to  Jesus. 

19      And  this  is  the  witness  of  John,  when  the  Jews 
sent  unto  him  from  Jerusalem  priests  and  Levites  to 

correctness  of  that  view  of  the  structure  of  the  Prologue  which  (as  we 
have  seen)  is  not  only  a  matter  of  interest,  but  also  a  guide  in  the  in- 
terpretation. There  is  no  mention  of  the  rejection  of  the  Word  in 
vers.  14-18.  But  this  fact  when  rightly  considered  rather  confirms 
what  has  been  said.  It  illustrates  that  progress  which  in  this  Gospel 
always  accompanies  parallelism.  In  vers.  1-5,  the  first  section  of  the 
Prologue,  we  have  seen  that  rejection  is  implied.  In  vers.  6-13,  the 
second  section,  it  is  fully  brought  out.  In  vers.  14-18,  the  third  sec- 
tion, it  is  overcome.  Thus  also,  taking  the  Gospel  as  a  whole,  it  is 
implied  in  the  section  immediately  preceding  the  Conflict  (chaps.  2 : 
12  ;  4:  54).  It  is  fully  brought  out  in  the  section  of  Conflict  (chaps. 
6:  1 ;  12:  50).  It  is  overcome  in  the  section  following  (chaps.  13:  1 ; 
17:26).  How  unique,  how  wonderful  is  the  plan  of  the  Gospel! 
How  much  light  does  the  whole  cast  upon  each  part,  how  much  each 
part  upon  the  whole  I 

The  Witness  of  the  Baptist  to  Jesus. — Vers.  19-34. 

Contents. — We  enter  here  upon  the  second  great  division  of  the  Gospel,  extending 
from  1:  19  to  2:  11,  and  containing  the  presentation  of  Jesus,  as  He  takes  His  place 
in  the  field  of  human  history  and,  alike  in  the  witness  borne  to  Him  by  the  Baptist 
and  in  His  manifestation  of  Himself  to  His  disciples,  shows  us  what  He  is.  When 
we  know  Him  we  shall  be  prepared  to  follow  Him  as  he  enters  upon  and  accomplishes 
His  work  in  the  world.  That  work,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  does  not  yet  be- 
gin. The  first  section  of  this  division  extends  from  1 :  19  to  1 :  34,  and  contains  the 
witness  of  the  Baptist.  Tiie  subordinate  parts  of  this  section  are — (1)  vers.  19-28, 
the  witness  by  the  Baptist  on  the  first  day  spoken  of;  (2)  vers.  29-34,  His  witness  on 
the  second  day. 

Ver.  19.  And  this  is  the  witness  of  John,  when  the  Jews 
sent  unto  him  from  Jerusalem  priests  and  Levites  to  ask 
him,  Who  art  thou?  The  preceding  verses  (1-18)  are  so  strongly 
marked  in  character,  and  so  distinctly  constitute  one  coherent  whole, 
that  we  cannot  but  place  them  in  a  section  by  themselves.  And  yet 
they  do  not  form  a  distinct  preface  to  the  book  (such,  for  example,  as 
we  find  in  Luke  1 :  1-4),  for  the  first  word  of  the  present  verse  (with 
which  the  regular  narrative  commences)  shows  that  this  section  must 
be  connected  with  what  goes  before.  It  is  possible  that  this  connec- 
tion is  really  very  close.  The  words  '  this  is  the  witness  of  John'  do  not 
necessarily  mean  'this  witness  which  follows  is  the  witness  of  John  ;' 
the  Evangelist's  ordinary  usage  in  similar  cases  suggests  that  the 
sense  intended  is  rather,  '  And  of  this  kind — confirmatory  of  the  pre- 


1:  19.]  JOHN  I.  21 

ceding  statements — is  the  witness,'  etc.  Such  an  interpretation  best 
accounts  for  the  use  of  the  present  tense,  '  this  is,'  (comp.  ver.  15), 
standing  in  striking  contrast  to  the  past  tenses  which  immediately 
follow  ;  it  also  throws  light  on  the  remarkably  emphatic  words  which 
form  the  iirst  half  of  ver.  20.  Thus  viewed,  the  present  section  at- 
taches itself  to  ver.  15 ;  what  is  there  given  in  a  general  form  is  now 
related  with  greater  fulness  in  connection  with  the  circumstances  of 
the  history.  The  '  witness '  directly  intended  is  that  of  vers.  19-27  ; 
but  we  must  also  include  the  very  important  testimony  borne  on  the 
following  day,  especially  tbat  of  vers.  33,  34,  which  presents  (in  a 
diiferent  form)  some  of  the  leading  truths  of  the  Prologue.  As  in  the 
earlier  Gospels,  the  mission  of  Jesus  is  introduced  by  the  Baptist ;  the 
peculiarity  of  John's  narrative  consists  in  this,  that  the  Baptist's  tes- 
timony is  obtained  in  answer  to  a  question  asked  by  '  the  Jews,'  who 
send  a  deputation  to  him  'from  Jerusalem,'  the  centre  of  the  theoc- 
racy. 

In  this  mention  of  *the  Jews'  we  meet  for  the  first  time  with  one 
of  the  most  characteristic  terms  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  In  the  other 
Gospels  the  expression  occurs  only  fifteen  or  sixteen  times,  and  twelve 
of  these  instances  are  examples  of  a  single  phrase,  '  King  of  the 
Jews,'  and  that  phrase  used  by  Gentiles.  The  remaining  passages  are 
Mark  7:3;  Luke  7:3,  23:  51;  and  Matt.  28:  15  (slightly  difi'erent 
from  the  rest  in  the  absence  of  the  article).  In  this  Gospel— in  addi- 
tion to  six  examples  of  the  title  '  King  of  the  Jews,'  used  as  in  the 
other  Gospels  — we  find  more  than  fifty  passages  in  which  the  Evan- 
gelist himself  (not  quoting  from  any  Gentile)  speaks  of  '  the  Jews.' 
Had  the  author  of  this  Gospel  been  a  Gentile,  this  usage  might  have 
seemed  very  natural ;  but  it  is  no  less  natural  in  the  case  of  a  writer 
who,  though  a  Jew  by  birth,  has  long  been  severed  from  his  country- 
men through  their  rejection  of  his  Lord.  The  leaders  and  represen- 
tatives of  the  nation  in  this  rejection  of  Jesus  are  those  whom  John  usu- 
ally designates  as  '  the  Jews.'  When  the  other  Gospels  speak  of  opposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  Pharisees,  chief  priests,  elders,  scribes,  Sadducees, 
or  lawyers,  John  (who  mentions  none  of  these  classes  except  Phari- 
sees and  chief  priests,  and  these  not  very  frequently)  is  wont  to  use 
this  general  term.  The  mass  of  the  people,  the  led  as  contrasted  with 
the  leaders,  he  speaks  of  as  *  the  multitude,'  or  '  the  multitudes.' 
Hence  in  most  of  the  passages  in  which  we  meet  with  'the  Jews,'  we 
must  understand  the  party  possessed  of  greatest  influence  in  the  na- 
tion, the  representatives  of  Judaism,  the  leaders  in  opposition  to 
Jesus.  Even  where  the  term  is  used  in  a  wider  sense,  it  does  not 
simply  designate  the  nation ;  when  employed  by  the  Evangelist  him- 
self, it  almost  always  bears  with  it  the  impress  of  one  thought — that 
of  general  unfaithfulness,  of  a  national  depravation  which  culminated 
in  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate 
that  the  deputation  here  spoken  of  was  sent  by  the  Sanhedrin  ;  but 
it  appears  to  have  been  formal  and  important,  composed  as  it  was  of 
persons  belonging  to  the  two  classes  which,  in  the  Old  Testament,  rep- 


22  JOHN  I.  [1 :  20,  21. 

20  ask  him,  Who  art  thou  ?     And  he  confessed,  and  de- 
nied not;    and  he   confessed,  I   am  not  the  Christ. 

21  And  they  asked  him,  What  then  ?     Art  thou  Elijah  ? 
And  he  saith,  I  am  not.     Art  thou   the  prophet? 

resent  the  service  of  the  Temple  (Josh.  3:  3 ;  2  Chron.  30:  27 ;  Ezek. 
44:  15).  If  we  add  to  this  the  fact  that,  as  appears  from  ver.  24, 
Pharisees  also  were  present,  tlie  striking  character  of  the  scene  before 
us  will  be  manifest.  On  the  one  side  is  the  Baptist,  standing  alone  in 
the  startling  strangeness  of  his  prophetic  mission ;  on  the  other  are 
all  who  either  possessed  or  had  assumed  religious  authority  in  Israel 
— the  Jews,  the  priests,  the  Levites,  and  the  Pharisees.  The  question 
'Who  art  thou?'  has  reference  to  the  supposed  personal  claims  of  the 
Baptist.  Might  it  not  be  that  one  who  had  so  suddenly  appeared  in 
the  wilderness,  and  who  had  produced  go  profound  an  effect  upon  all 
classes,  was  the  very  Messiah  anxiously  waited  for  at  this  time? 
Compare  Luke  3:  15. 

Ver.  20.  And  he  confessed,  and  denied  not.  And  he  con- 
fessed, I  am  not  the  Christ.  The  answer  of  the  Baptist  is  report- 
ed with  great  solemnity.  The  effect  of  the  double  statement,  '  he  con- 
fessed, and  denied  not'  (comp.  ver.  3;  1  John  2:  4,  27)  is  to  give 
peculiar  impressiveness  to  the  words  :  St.  John  thus  brings  into  relief 
the  single-minded  faithfulness  of  the  Baptist,  and  at  the  same  time 
corrects  mistaken  opinions  as  to  the  character  of  his  mission  (see  note 
on  ver.  8).  In  the  reply  itself  the  first  word  is  strongly  emphatic, 
*It  is  not  I  who  am  the  Christ.'  The  Baptist  thus  prepares  the  way 
for  the  further  statements  which  he  is  to  make  with  the  view  of  guid- 
ing his  hearers  to  that  Christ  who  is  come,  and  whom  with  gradually 
increasing  clearness  he  is  to  proclaim. 

Ver.  21.  And  they  asked  him.  What  then  ?  Art  thou 
Elijah  ?  And  he  saith,  I  am  not.  The  question  was  a  natural 
one,  for  the  thought  of  the  coming  of  Elijah  was  intimately  associated 
with  that  of  the  coming  of  Messiah  (Mai.  4:  5).  The  answer  seems 
less  natural,  for  our  Lord,  when  He  spoke  of  the  Baptist,  described 
him  as  'Elijah  who  was  to  come'  (Matt.  11:  14).  It  is  possible 
that  even  the  Baptist  himself  did  not  know  that  he  was  'Elijah'  in 
this  latter  sense,  and  hence  could  reply  without  hesitation  that  he  is 
not  that  prophet.— Art  thou  the  prophet  ?  And  he  answered, 
No.  A  third  supposition  is  tried.  Is  he  '  the  prophet  ? '  A  com- 
parison of  1:  25  and  7:  40,  41,  with  6:  14,  15,  seems  to  lead  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  were  at  this  time  two  currents  of  opinion  with 
regard  to  the  coming  prophet  (Deut.  18:  15),  the  one  distinguishing 
him  from  the  Messiah,  the  other  maintaining  that  the  two  characters 
would  be  united  in  '  him  that  should  come.'  But  that  a  prophet  would 
certainly  appear  at  the  opening  of  the  Messianic  age  was  expected  by 
all.  Hence  the  question,  as  now  put,  covered  the  only  other  suppo- 
sition that  could  explain  the  important  position  which  the  Baptist  had 


1 :  22-24.]  JOHN  I.  23 

22  And  he  answered,  No.  They  said  therefore  unto 
him,  Who  art  thou  ?  that  we  may  give  an  answer  to 
them  that  sent  us.     What  sayest  thou  of  thyself? 

23  He  said,  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness, Make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said  Isa- 

24  iah  the  prophet.     ^  And  they  had  been  sent  from  the 

^Or,  And  certain  had  been  sent  from  among  the  Pharisees. 

assumed,  and  which  appeared  to  indicate  that  he  was  introducing  a 
new  era.  But  the  main  point  with  the  Baptist  is  to  show  that,  strictly- 
speaking,  he  is  simply  the  herald  of  that  era.  He  is  only  to  prepare 
the  way  for  Him  in  whom  it  both  begins  and  is  completed  (comp. 
3Iatt.  11  :  11-13).  The  new  supposition  is  accordingly  repudiated  in 
terms  as  emphatic  as  before. 

Ver.  22.  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Who  art  thou? 
that  we  may  give  an  answer  to  them  that  sent  us.  What 
sayest  thou  of  thyself?  The  Baptist  has  disowned  the  three  sup- 
positions that  have  been  made.  He  is  not  'the  Christ,'  not  'Elijah,' 
not  '  the  prophet.'  The  deputation  now  appeal  directly  to  himself  to 
state  who  he  is. 

Ver.  23.  He  said,  I  am  a  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  w^il- 
derness,  Make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  as  said  the 
prophet  Isaiah.  The  words  are  from  Isa.  40 :  3,  and,  though 
slightly  modified  in  form,  they  completely  express  the  sense  of  the 
original  passage.  To  captive  Israel,  whose  warfare  is  now  accom- 
plished, whose  iniquity  is  pardoned,  the  glorious  approach  of  her 
Deliverer  is  proclaimed.  He  comes  to  lead  back  His  people  through 
the  desert  to  their  own  land.  The  herald's  voice  sounds  in  the  desert, 
announcing  the  coming  of  the  King,  commanding  that  all  obstacles  be 
removed  from  the  course  of  His  triumphal  march,  and  that  through 
the  wilderness  there  be  made  a  highway  for  the  Deliverer  and  for  the 
people  whom  He  has  set  free.  The  Baptist  takes  the  words  in  their 
true  application  to  the  Messianic  deliverance  and  kingdom.  He 
speaks  of  himself  as  the  herald,  or  rather  as  the  herald's  voice ;  as  in 
ver.  8,  his  personality,  so  to  speak,  is  swallowed  up  in  the  message 
which  he  came  to  bring. 

Ver.  24.  And  some  from  among  the  Pharisees  had  been 
sent.  We  cannot  doubt  that  these  words  are  introduced  to  lead  on 
to  the  following  statement,  rather  than  to  give  completeness  to  the  ac- 
count of  the  preceding  verses.  It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  think 
of  a  second  and  entirely  new  deputation.  The  persons  now  intro- 
duced may  have  formed  part  of  the  first  body  of  questioners.  But  the 
point  of  special  interest  to  them  is  that  which  meets  us  in  ver.  25, 
rather  than  that  already  spoken  of.  They  were  Pharisees,  and  the 
Pharisees  considered  themselves  the  guardians  of  the  ordinances  of 
religious  worship  among  their  countrymen.     Hence  the  significance 


24  JOHN  I.  [1 :  25-27. 

25  Pharisees.     And  they  asked  him,  and  said  unto  him, 
AYhy  then  baptizest  thou,  if  thou  art  not  the  Christ, 

26  neither  Elijah,  neither  the  prophet  ?     John  answer- 
ed them,  saying,  I  baptize  ^  with  w^ater  :  in  the  midst 

27  of  you  standeth  one  whom  ye  know  not,  even  he  that 
cometh  after  me,  the  latchet  of  w^hose  shoe  I  am  not 

1  Or,  w. 

of  the  statements  in  4 :  1,9:  13-15,  12 :  42 ;  and  also  of  the  question 
which  is  now  addressed  to  the  Baptist,  That  question  does  not  ne- 
cessarily indicate  a  hostile  bearing  towards  him  ;  nor  during  the  ear- 
lier part  of  the  life  of  Jesus  do  the  Pharisees  in  general  appear  to 
have  opposed  the  Saviour  in  the  same  manner  as  the  'Jews'  (comp. 
on  3:  1,  7:  32). 

A^er.  25.  And  they  asked  him,  and  said  unto  him,  "Why 
baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou  art  not  the  Christ,  nor  Elijah, 
nor  the  prophet  ?  The  '  Jews,'  the  representatives  of  the  theo- 
cratic spirit  of  the  people,  had  been  mainly  concerned  about  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Baptist  in  relation  to  the  national  hopes.  Could  it  be  that 
he  was  about  to  assume  the  government  of  the  nation,  and  lead  it  to 
victory?  The  Pharisees  concern  themselves  more  about  the  rite  ad- 
ministered by  Lhe  Baptist.  It  is  the  baptism  of  persons  belonging  to 
the  chosen  people  that  startles  them.  They  might  have  viewed  his 
baptism  without  surprise  had  he  invited  to  it  those  only  who  were  be- 
yond the  pale  of  Israel.  But  that  one  who,  by  his  own  confession, 
was  neither  the  Christ,  nor  Elijah,  nor  the  prophet,  should  thus  ad- 
minister a  rite  symbolical  of  cleansing  to  those  who,  as  Jews,  were 
already  clean,  this  it  was  that  threw  them  into  perplexity.  On 
the  significance  of  John's  baptism,  see  notes  on  chap.  3:  5,  and 
Matt.  3:6. 

Vers.  26,  27.  John  answered  them,  saying,  I  baptize  in 
■water.  The  meaning  of  the  Baptist's  answer  has  been  greatly  ob- 
scured by  the  insertion  of  '  but '  after  these  words.  It  has  thus  been 
supposed  that  the  object  of  the  Baptist  is  to  depreciate  his  baptism  by 
bringing  it  into  comparison  with  the  baptism  in  the  Spirit  adminis- 
tered by  Jesus.  The  two  baptisms,  however,  are  not  as  yet  compared 
with  one  another.  What  John  depreciated  was  himself,  not  the  rite 
which  he  administered;  and  at  ver.  31  he  expressly  magnifies  his 
baptism,  and  points  out  its  high  prophetic  significance.  From  this 
last-mentioned  verse  the  import  of  the  present  clause  must  be  deter- 
mined. Even  now  John  means,  I  baptize  in  water  that  I  may  call  at- 
tention to  Him  whose  way  I  am  commissioned  to  prepare.  For  this 
purpose  I  am  a  '  voice  of  one  that  crieth  ; '  for  this  purpose  also  '  I 
baptize  in  Avater.' — In  the  midst  of  you  standeth  one  "whom 
ye  know  not,  coming  after  me,  the  latchet  of  whose  san- 
dal I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose..  Now  follows  the  great  fact 
explanatory  of  all  this  divine  work  of  preparation,  that  the  One  waited 


1:  28,29.]  JOHN  I.  25 

28  worthy   to   unloose.      These    things   were    done    in 
^  Bethany  beyond  Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing. 

29  On  the  morrow  he  seeth  Jesus  coming  unto  him, 
and  saith.  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  w^hich  ^taketh 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  Bethabarah,  some  Betharabah. 
2  Or,  beareth  the  sit'. 

for  is  come.  Three  stages  of  His  manifestation,  however,  are  to  be 
marked ;  and  as  yet  we  have  only  reached  the  first,  '  He  standeth  in 
the  midst  of  you. '  So  standing,  He  is  distinguished  by  three  charac- 
teristics :  (i)  'Ye  know'  Him  '  not,' — the  'ye'  being  emphatic,  ye  to 
whom  He  would  gladly  reveal  Himself:  (2)  He  cometh  'after  me' 
(see  ver.  15) :  (3)  His  glory  is  so  great  that  the  Baptist  is  not  worthy 
to  unloose  the  latchet  of  His  sandal.  On  the  last  words  see  note  on 
Mark  1  :  7.  Such  is  the  first  testimony  of  the  Baptist  to  Jesus.  The 
fuller  testimonies  have  yet  to  come.  At  this  point,  therefore,  the  nar- 
rative pauses  to  tell  us  that  this  testimony  was  given  at  the  very  place 
where  the  Baptist  was  at  the  moment  making  so  profound  an  impres- 
sion upon  the  people. 

Ver.  28.  These  things  -were  done  in  Bethany  beyond 
Jordan.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Bethabara  is  not  the  true  read- 
ing in  this  verse.  Origen,  writing  in  the  third  century,  states  that  he 
found  Bethany  in  almost  all  copies  of  the  Gospel.  This  statement  is 
decisive.  It  cannot  be  set  aside,  nor  indeed  is  it  even  lessened  in 
weight,  by  the  fact  that  Origen  himself,  owing  to  his  inability  to  iden- 
tify Bethany,  believed  Bethabara  to  be  the  place  intended.  The  exist- 
ence of  another  Bethany,  near  Jerusalem,  presents  no  difficulty,  as  it 
was  not  uncommon  for  two  places  to  bear  the  same  name.  The  in- 
stances of  Bethsaida  (Luke  9:  10;  Mark  6:  45),  Carmel,  Caesarea, 
etc.,  are  well  known.  It  is  even  possible  that  the  two  names,  though 
alike  written  Bethania  in  Greek,  may  in  their  original  Hebrew  form 
have  been  difi"erent  words;  just  as,  for  instance,  the  'Abel'  of  Gen. 
4 :  2  is  altogether  different  in  actual  form  from  the  '  Abel '  of  2  Sam. 
20 :  14.  This  Bethany  may  have  been  small  and  unimportant ;  Beth- 
abara, on  the  other  hand,  seems  to  have  been  so  well  known  that  the 
addition  of  the  words  '  beyond  Jordan '  would  have  been  less  natural. 
Of  the  situation  of  Bethany  we  know  no  more  than  we  are  told  in 
this  verse  (comp.  chap.  2:  1).  It  has  been  variously  placed — near 
Jericho,  near  Scythopolis  (a  few  miles  south  of  the  sea  of  Galilee), 
and  by  one  recent  writer,  Caspari,  a  little  to  the  north  of  that  sea. 
The  last  opinion  seems  the  least  probable  of  the  three.  The  second 
testimony  of  the  Baptist  is  now  presented  to  us. 

Ver.  29.  The  next  day  he  seeth  Jesus  coming  unto  him. 
The  '  day '  is  that  immediately  following  the  day  of  the  first  testimony, 
and  the  climactic  arrangement  of  the  narrative  is  already  perceptible. 
Already  Jesus  is  in  a  different  position.  On  the  previous  day  He  was 
spoken  of  as  '  coming  after '  John ;  now  He  is  '  coming  unto '  Him. 


26  JOHN  I.  [1:  29. 

Then  He  stood  unknown,  unrecognized,  amidst  the  throng ;  now  He 
is  expressly  pointed  out  by  His  forerunner.  Then  it  was  His  eleva- 
tion above  John  that  was  expressed  ;  now  it  is  the  greatness  of  His 
work  in  itself. — And  saith,  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  -which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  "world.  The  translation  of  this 
clause  has  been  disputed  (see  the  margin  of  the  Authorized  Version), 
but  without  good  reason.  The  idea  of  '  taking '  or  '  bearing '  sin  is 
indeed  of  very  common  occurrence  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  it  is  not 
expressed  by  the  word  here  used,  which  denotes  taking  away,  removal. 
In  meaning,  however,  the  two  renderings  would  almost  coincide,  since 
the  metaphor  of  the  verse  is  sacrificial :  in  the  thought  of  hearing  sin 
as  an  atoning  sacrifice  is  involved  the  removal  of  the  punishment  de- 
served and  of  the  sin  itself.  There  is  only  one  other  passage  of  the 
New  Testament  in  which  this  expression  is  found,  1  John  3 :  5,  and 
there  the  meaning  is  very  clear.  A  much  more  difficult  question  re- 
mains :  What  is  the  Baptist's  meaning  when  he  speaks  of  '■the  Lamb 
of  God  ? '  The  answer  which  perhaps  now  finds  most  favor  with 
commentators  is,  that  this  particular  image  was  directly  suggested  to 
his  mind  by  the  memorable  prophecy  of  Isa.  53,in  one  verse  of  which 
(ver.  7)  there  is  an  allusion  to  'a  lamb.'  But  there  are  serious  diflB- 
culties  in  the  way  of  this  explanation.  A  reference  to  the  chapter 
will  show  that  in  that  verse  the  prophet  speaks  of  the  '  lamb  '  as  an 
example  of  uncomplaining  patience,  and  not  in  connection  with  tak- 
ing away  sin.  '  He  was  oppressed,  although  he  submitted  himself, 
and  opened  not  his  mouth  ;  as  a  lamb  that  is  led  to  the  slaughter,  and 
as  a  sheep  dumb  before  her  shearers ;  and  he  opened  not  his  mouth.' 
Again,  had  the  prophecy  of  this  chapter  been  definitely  the  source  of 
the  Baptist's  words,  we  might  surely  have  looked  for  some  close  re- 
semblances of  language.  But  such  coincidences  are  not  to  be  found 
in  any  part  of  the  chapter :  the  ideas  of  taking  and  bearing  sin  are 
prominent,  but  they  are  expressed  by  words  altogether  diff"erent  from 
that  here  used.  If  we  are  thus  obliged  to  look  away  from  Isaiah's 
great  prophecy  of  Messiah,  we  naturally  turn  to  the  Mosaic  ritual  of 
sacrifice.  Again  we  are  met  by  ditficulties.  It  would  seem  impossible 
to  bring  in  here  the  thought  of  any  other  than  the  sin-offering,  and  yet 
it  was  only  occasionally,  and  almost  as  an  exception,  that  a  sin-ofi'er- 
ing  consisted  of  a  lamb  (Lev.  4:  32).  The  lamb  of  the  morning  and 
evening  sacrifices  was  a  burnt -offering.  There  remains  only  two  other 
explanations  of  the  phrase.  It  is  just  possible  that  '  the  lamb '  merely 
indicates  a  sacrificial  victim,  the  gentleness  and  harmlessness  of  this 
animal  making  it  especially  suitable  as  a  type.  It  is,  however,  much 
more  probable  that  the  Baptist  spoke  of  \i)i\Q  paschal  lamb.  The  pecu- 
liar definiteness  of  the  expression  {'the  Lamb  of  God')  will  in  this 
case  need  no  explanation  :  no  thought  was  more  familiar  to  the  Is- 
raelite than  that  of  the  lamb  for  the  Passover;  and,  we  may  add.  few 
thoughts  are  brought  out  in  this  Gospel  with  greater  distinctness  than 
the  relation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  to  the  paschal  sacrifice  and  feast  (see 
notes  on  chaps.  6  and  19).     As  the  institution  of  the  Passover  pre- 


1:  30,31.]  JOHN  I.  27 

30  away  the  sin  of  the  world  !     This  is  he  of  whom  I 
said,  After  me  cometh  a  man  which  is  become  before 

31  me  :  for  he  was  ^  before  me.     And  I  knew  him  not ; 
but  that  he  should  be  made  manifest  unto  Israel,  for 

1  Gr.  first  in  regard  of  me. 

ceded  the  general  Mosaic  legislation,  its  laws  and  arrangements  lie 
without  the  circle  of  the  ordinary  ritual  of  sacrifices,  and  combine 
ideas  which  were  otherwise  kept  distinct,  The  paschal  supper  resem- 
bles the  peace-offerings,  the  characteristic  of  which  was  the  sacred 
feast  that  succeeded  the  presentation  of  the  victim  (Lev,  7:  15), — an 
emblem  of  the  fellowship  between  the  accepted  worshipper  and  his 
God.  But  the  sin-offering  also  is  included,  as  a  reference  to  the  ori- 
ginal institution  of  the  Passover  will  at  once  show.  The  careful 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  upon  the  door-posts  was  intended  to  be  more 
than  a  sign  to  the  destroying  angel  whom  to  spare  The  lamb  was 
slain  and  the  blood  sprinkled  that  atonement  might  be  made  for  sin : 
when  Israel  is  consecrated  anew  to  God,  the  sin  and  the  deserved 
punishment  removed,  the  sacred  feast  is  celebrated.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  the  nearness  of  the  Passover  (see  chap.  2:  13)  may  have 
presented  these  thoughts  to  the  Baptist's  mind.  It  is  still  more  likely 
that  one  who  was  enabled  so  clearly  to  discern  the  meaning  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  to  recognize  the  removal  of  'the  sin  of  the  world' 
as  the  object  of  Messiah's  coming,  would  see  from  the  first  how  fitly 
that  ordinance,  in  which  Israel's  redemption  began,  associated  itself 
with  the  approaching  redemption  of  the  world.  It  is  the  world's 
Passover,  both  the  sacrifice  and  the  feast,  that  John  sees  to  be  at 
hand.  With  this  verse  compare  especially  1  Pet.  1  :  18,  19;  Eev.  5: 
6,  9.  The  raaiginal  references  will  show  to  what  an  extent  this  Gos- 
pel is  pervaded  by  the  thought  of  '  the  world '  as  the  object  of  Christ's 
saving  work. 

Ver.  30.  See  the  note  upon  ver.  15.  Here,  as  there,  the  words  re- 
fer to  testimony  given  by  the  Baptist  to  Jesus  at  some  point  of  time 
and  on  some  occasion  not  recorded. 

Ver.  31.  And  I  kne-w  him  not;  but  that  he  may  be  made 
manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  came  I,  baptizing  in  -water. 
The  explanation  of  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  will  be  best  given 
when  we  come  to  ver.  33.  The  object  which  the  Baptist  here  assigns 
for  his  work  of  baptizing  may  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  different  from 
that  mentioned  in  the  earlier  Gospels,  where  he  is  spoken  of  as  sent 
to  prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord.  Attention  to  the  words  used  by 
John  will  remove  all  difficulty.  '  Israel '  is  not  to  be  limited  to  the 
Jewish  nation.  It  embraces  the  true  theocracy  of  God, — neither 
Jews  nor  Gentiles  as  such,  but  all  who  will  believe  (comp.  on  vers.  47, 
49).  'Made  manifest,'  again,  is  not  a  mere  outward  manifestation, 
but  a  revelation  of  Jesus  as  He  is.  Thus  the  meaning  of  the  words  is 
not,  '  I  baptize  in  water  in  order  that  Jesus  may  come  to  my  baptism, 


28  JOHN   I.  [1:  32,  33. 

32  this  cause  came  I  baptizing  ^  with  water.  And  John 
bare  witness,  saying,  I  have  behekl  the  Spirit  de- 
scending as  a  dove  out  of  heaven ;  and  it  abode  upon 

33  him.     And  I  knew  him  not :  but  he  that  sent  me  to 

»  Or,  in. 

and  may  there  receive  a  testimony  from  on  high; '  but,  '  I  baptize  that 
I  may  declai-e  the  necessity  of  that  forsaking  of  sin  without  which  no 
true  manifestation  of  Jesus  can  be  made  to  the  heart.'  The  words  in 
their  real  meaning,  therefore,  are  in  pei'fect  harmony  with  the  ac- 
counts of  the  Synoptists.  The  advance  of  thought  from  the  unrecog- 
nized Jesus  of  ver.  26  to  the  *  made  manifest'  of  ver.  31  is  obvious. 
It  corresponds  to  the  '  stand  eth '  of  ver.  26,  and  the  'coming  unto 
him '  of  ver.  29  ;  with  the  fact,  also,  that  the  one  is  the  first,  the  other 
the  second,  testimony  of  the  Baptist. 

Ver.  32.  And  John  bare  witness,  saying,  I  have  beheld 
the  Spirit  descending.  The  effect  of  what  the  Baptist  had_  seen 
had  remained,  and  still  remains  with  him  in  all  its  power :  '  I  have 
beheld.'— And  it  abode  upon  him.  John  had  not  merely  seen 
the  Spirit  descend  with  dove-like  motion  upon  Jesus  ;  he  had  also  seen 
that  it  '  abode '  upon  Him, — the  symbol  of  an  abiding  and  permanent 
possession. 

Ver.  33.  And  I  knew  him  not.  The  first  clause  of  this  verse, 
like  that  of  ver.  31,  is  attended  with  peculiar  difficulty,  for  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  imagine  that,  intimately  connected  as  the  families 
of  Jesus  and  of  the  Baptist  were,  the  former  should  have  been  for 
thirty  years  personally  unknown  to  the  latter.  Moreover  Matt.  3 :  14 
seems  distinctly  to  imply  not  only  (hat  such  personal  acquaintance- 
ship existed  before  the  baptism,  but  that  the  Baptist  even  then  knew 
Jesus  as  greater  than  himself.  Here,  however,  he  says  that  until 
after  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  he  '  knew  Him  not.'  Without  noticing 
the  other  explanations  which  have  been  given,  we  may  observe  that  the 
solution  of  the  ditficulty  is  to  be  found  in  keeping  distinctly  before  us 
the  official  and  not  personal  light  in  which  both  Jesus  and  the  Baptist  are 
presentel  to  us  here.  No  denial  of  personal  knowledge  of  Jesus  has 
any  bearing  upon  the  point  which  the  Baptist  would  establish.  He 
is  himself  an  official  messenger  of  God,  intrusted  with  a  commission 
which  he  is  to  continue  to  discharge  until  such  time  as  he  is  super- 
seded by  the  actual  arrival  of  Him  whose  way  he  prepai-es.  But  this 
latter  is  also  the  '  Sent '  of  God,  and  has  particular  credentials  to  pro- 
duce. Until  these  are  produced,  the  herald  of  His  approach  cannot 
*  know '  Him  in  the  only  character  in  which  he  has  to  do  with  Him. 
No  private  acquaintanceship  with  Him — and,  we  may  even  say,  no 
private  convictions  as  to  His  Messianic  character — will  justify  that 
recognition  of  Him  before  which  alone  the  herald  may  give  way. 
The  gi-eat  King  from  whom  the  herald  and  the  Ambassador  are  alike 
sent  has  named  a  particular  sign  which  shall  attest  the  position  of  the 


1:  34.]  JOHN  I.  29 

baptize  ^  with  water,  he  said  unto  me,  Upon  whomso- 
ever thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending,  and  abiding 
upon  him,  the  same  is  he  that  baptizeth  ^with  the 
34  Holy  Spirit.  And  I  have  seen,  and  have  borne  wit- 
ness that  this  is  the  Son  of  God. 

3  Or,  in. 

latter,  and  close  the  labors  of  the  former.  That  sign  must  be 
exhibited  before  the  herald  of  the  Ambassador's  approach  will  be 
warranted  to  withdraw.     Until  then  the  one  '  knows  '   not  the  other. 

But  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  in  vrater,  he  said  unto  me, 
Upon  v^homsoever  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending, 
and  abiding  upon  him,  the  same  is  he  -which  baptizeth 
■with  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  to  the  sign,  comp.  ver.  32.  It  is  the 
token  that  in  Jesus  are  fulfilled  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament 
with  regard  to  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Messianic  age,  and 
especially  to  the  impartation  of  the  Spirit  to  the  Messiah  Himself 
(Isa.  61 :  1;  Luke  41  :  18), — prophecies  which  describe  the  crowning 
glory  of  the  latter  days.  John's  baptism  could  only  point  to  the  lay- 
ing aside  of  sin  ;  that  of  Jesus  brought  with  it  the  quickening  into 
spiritual  life  (comp.  on  3:  5).  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  words 
'  Holy  Spirit'  are  here  used  without  the  article.  The  object  is  to  fix 
our  attention,  not  upon  the  Spirit  in  His  personality,  but  upon  the 
power  of  that  spiritual  influence  which  He  exerts.  It  would  be  better 
to  translate,  '  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'  were  it  not  difficult  to 
use  such  an  expression,  in  conformity  with  the  idiom  of  the  English 
tongue,  in  the  many  passages  where  this  particular  form  of  the  origi- 
nal is  employed. 

Ver.  34.  And  I  have  seen,  and  have  borne  witness  that 
this  is  the  Son  of  God.  ♦  I  have  seen,'  for  the  result  of  the  see- 
ing abides  unchanged  and  ever  present :  '  I  have  borne  witness,'  for 
the  Baptist  has  entered  on  that  one  witness-bearing  for  which  he  was 
sent  (ver.  7),  and  which  it  will  henceforth  be  his  office  simply  to  re- 
peat. It  is  particularly  to  be  noticed  that  the  '  witness'  referred  to  is 
not  that  Jesus  baptizes  with  the  Spirit,  but  that  He  is  '  the  Son  of 
God,' — a  designation  which  expresses  the  divine  nature  and  character 
of  Jesus,  and  with  this  the  relation  in  which  He  stands  to  the  Father. 
In  one  aspect  He  is  God;  in  another  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  Son 
distinct  from  the  Father.  The  link  of  connection  between  the  trans- 
cendent conclusion  of  the  Baptist  and  the  fact  upon  which  it  rests  is 
probably  to  be  found  in  the  thought  that  He  who  baptizes  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  who  therefore  has  the  power  to  impart  the  gifts  and  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  of  God,  must  be  Divine.  The  special  form  which 
this  confession  of  our  Lord's  divinity  takes  was,  we  cannot  doubt,  de- 
termined by  the  words  spoken  from  heaven  :  '  This  is  my  beloved  Son, 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased'  (Matt.  3  :   17). 

It  has  been  sometimes  maintained  that  *  Son  of  God'  must  be  un- 


30  JOHN  I.  [1:  35,  36. 

Chapter  I.     35-51. 

Jesus  manifests  Himself  to  hearts  open  to  receive  Him. 

35  Again  on  the  morrow  John  was  standing,  and  two 

36  of  his  disciples ;    and  he  looked  upon  Jesus  as   he 

derstood  as  a  mere  designation  of  '  tlie  Messiah.'  For  this  opinion  we 
believe  that  no  evidence  can  be  found,  either  in  Scripture  or  in  early- 
Jewish  writings.  There  are,  indeed,  passages  in  the  Old  Testament, 
acknowledged  to  be  prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  in  which  a  Divine 
Sonship  is  attributed  to  Him  (see  especially  Ps.  2:7);  but  the  name 
seems  to  be  always  indicative  of  nature,  and  not  merely  of  office. 
How  the  name  was  understood  by  the  Jews  of  our  Lord's  day  may  be 
seen  from  chap.  5:   18,  19,  10:  29,  30,  33. 

^  It  is  important  to  compare  this  section  with  the  corresponding  por- 
tions of  the  other  Gospels.  The  omissions  are  very  remarkable.  We 
say  nothing  of  the  Evangelist's  silence  as  to  the  circumstances  of  our 
Lord's  birth  and  early  years  ;  this  belongs  to  the  general  plan  of  the 
Gospel,  which  here  agrees  with  that  of  Mark.  But  it  is  noteworthy 
that  nothing  is  said  of  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  or  of  the  temptation  which 
followed.  To  the  baptism,  however,  there  is  a  clear  allusion  in  vers. 
38,  34  ;  hence  its  place  in  the  order  of  events  is  before  ver.  19.  The 
temptation  also  was  at  an  end  befere  John  '  saw  Jesus  coming  unto 
him'  (ver.  29),  On  the  other  hand,  these  verses  contain  many  co- 
incidences in  language  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  John's  application 
of  Isa.  40 :  3,  and  the  contrast  wOTbh  he  draws  between  himself,  bap- 
tizinnr  in  water,  and  Him  who  shall  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  are 
related  by  every  Evangelist.  In  all  the  Gospels,  also,  we  find  words 
similar  to  those  of  ver.  27. 

Jesus  manifests  Himself  to  hearts  open  to  receive  Him.     35-51. 

Contents.  The  same  general  subject  is  continued  in  this  section — Jesun  taking 
His  place  on  the  stage  of  history.  We  pass  now,  however,  fi-om  the  witness  of  the 
Baptist,  given  on  two  successive  days,  to  the  manifestation  of  Himself  by  Jesus  to 
hearts  open  to  receive  and  welcome  Him.  This  manifestation  takes  place  upon  two 
successive  days.  The  subordinate  parts  of  the  present  section  are — (1)  vers.  35-42, 
witness  borne  on  the  first  of  the  two  new  days  (the  third  day  from  that  of  ver.  19) ;  (2) 
veis.  43-51,  witness  borne  on  the  second  day  (the  fourth  day). 

Vers.  35,  36.  In  these  verses  we  have  a  new  testimony  borne  by 
the  Baptist  to  Jesus.  In  ver.  29  we  were  simply  told  that  John 
*  seeth  Jesus  coming  unto  him  and  saith  ;'  to  ivhom  the  words  were 
spoken  we  know  not.  There  is  therefore  great  importance  in  the  defi- 
nite statement  of  verse  35,  that  John  now  spoke  in  the  presence  of 
disciples.  The  Baptist  came  to  deliver  a  general  witness  respecting 
Jesus  ;  but  he  also  came  to  direct  to  Jesus  all  over  whom  he  had 
gained  influence.  The  words  which  he  utters  are  few,  so  that  the 
second  testimony  may  seem  inferior  to  the   first.     We  may  perhaps, 


1 :  37-39.]  JOHN  I.  31 

37  walked,  and  saith,  Behold,  the  Lamb  of  God  !  And 
the  two  disciples  heard  him  speak,  and  they  foUow- 

38  ed  Jesus.  And  Jesus  turned,  and  beheld  them  fol- 
lowing, and  saith  unto  them.  What  seek  ye  ?  And 
they  said  unto  him,  Rabbi   (which  is  to  say,  being  in- 

39  terpreted,  ^  Master),  where  abidest  thou  ?      He  saith 

1  Or,  Teacher. 

say  that  it  is  not  really  inferior.  When  the  earlier  words  (ver.  29) 
had  once  made  clear  what  was  signified  by  the  announcement  of  '  the 
Lamb  of  God,'  this  title  by  itself,  in  its  own  simplicity,  really  con- 
veyed a  fuller  meaning.  '  The  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world'  brought  to  mind  the  paschal  sacrifice  ;  but  in  point- 
ing to  Jesus  as  '  the  Lamb  of  God,'  the  Baptist,  impljnng  all  that  he 
had  expressed  before,  presents  to  the  thought  all  the  symbolism  of 
the  words, — with  the  true  paschal  sacrifice }o\nm^  the  iv\xQ  feast 

Ver.  37.  And  the  two  disciples  heard  him  speak,  and 
they  followed  Jesus.  The  witness  of  the  Baptist  has  its  proper 
etfect, — an  effect,  we  cannot  doubt,  foreseen  and  designed  by  himself 
(chap.  3  :  27-30).  Those  who  listen  to  it  turn  from  him,  and  follow 
Jesus. 

Ver.  38.  And  Jesus  turned  and  beheld  them,  following, 
and  saith  unto  them,  What  seek  ye  ?  They  who  thus  follow 
Jesus  shall  not  do  so  in  vain.  As  in  the  sense  of  their  own  un wor- 
thiness tliey  walked  after  Him,  He  turned,  and  inquired  what  they 
sought. — And  they  said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  w^hich  is  to  say, 
being  interpreted,  Teacher,  where  abidest  thou  ?  '  Where  is 
Thy  permanent  resting-place  and  home,  that  as  pupils  we  may  seek 
Thee  there,  and  may  abide  with  Thee  till  we  have  seen  the  glory  of 
which  we  have  heard  ?'  By  the  title  Rabbi  (which  strictly  meant  my 
master  or  lord,  but  which  in  the  time  of  Jesus  had  already  come  to  be 
applied  to  teachers)  they  had  been  wont  to  address  their  own  master 
(chap.  3  :  2ii);  and  they  naturally  give  the  same  name  of  honour  to 
Jesus.  When  they  have  done  with  '  seeking,'  when  they  have  found 
Him,  they  will  say  more  (com.  13  :  13). 

Ver.  39.  He  saith  unto  them.  Come,  and  ye  shall  see. 
They  came  therefore  and  saw  where  he  abode,  and  abode 
"With  him  that  day.  The  seeker  shall  not  seek  in  vain.  They  had 
asked  where  He  abode  ;  and  that  the  answer  of  Jesus  was  a  direct 
meeting  of  their  request  is  proved  by  the  statement  made  by  the  Evan- 
gelist, that  'they  came  and  saw  where  He  abode.'  The  nature  of 
the  intercourse  is  not  described.  We  are  left  only  to  imagine  from 
the  confession  of  Andrew  in  ver.  41  what  must  have  been  the  solemn 
teachings,  the  gracious  communications  of  Himself  by  Jesus,  the  pa- 
tient instructing  of  ignorance,  the  tender  removal  of  doubts,  until,  in 
all  the  joy  of  their  new  discovery,  they  could  say,  '  We  have  found.' 


32  JOHN  I.  [1 :  40, 41. 

unto  them,  Come,  and  ye  shall  see.  They  came 
therefore  and  saw  where  he  abode  ;  and  they  abode 
with   him  that  day  :    it  was  about  the  tenth  hour. 

40  One  of  the  two  that  heard  John  speak,  and  followed 

41  him,  was  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's  brother.  He  find- 
eth  first  his  own  brother  Simon,  and  saith  unto  him, 
We  have  found  the  Messiah  (which  is,  being   inter- 

This  much,  however,  we  seem  entitled  to  infer  from  the  thrice-re- 
peated '  abide'  or  'abode,' — a  word  characteristic  of  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, and  always  full  of  deep  and  solemn  import, — that  the  Evangelist 
designs  to  convey  to  us  something  more  than  the  thought  of  mere 
outward  presence  with  Jesus. — It  vsras  about  the  tenth  hour. 
There  are  four  passages  in  which  the  Evangelist  directly  refers  to  the 
hour  of  the  day  at  which  an  event  occurred  (seei^chap,  4  :  6,  52  ;  19  : 
14).  But  for  the  last  of  these  passages  it  might  be  natural  to  suppose 
that  John,  like  the  other  Evangelists,  reckons  time  from  sunrise,  an 
hour  being  the  twelfth  part  of  the  (varying)  interval  between  sunrise 
and  sunset.  As,  however,  Mark«records  (chap.  15:  25)  that  Jesus 
was  crucified  at  the  'third  hour'  (between  8  and  9  a.  m.),  and  John 
expressly  states  that  His  condemnation  was  later  than  the  '  sixth 
hour,'  the  probability  that  the  latter  writer  follows  a  diflFerent  reck- 
oning is  very  strong.  Further  investigation  has  shown  that  at  the 
Tery  time  when  this  book  was  written  a  mode  of  computation  substan- 
tially agreeing  with  our  own  was  known  in  Asia  Minor  (where  John 
wrote)  and  elsewhere.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  in  such  a  matter  as  this 
a  writer  naturally  follows  the  custom  of  those  amongst  whom  he  lives, 
and  whom  he  has  immediately  in  view  as  his  readers.  We  shall  as- 
sume, therefore,  in  each  case  that  the  hour  (of  fixed  length,  not  var- 
iable) is  reckoned  from  midnight  or  noon.  Here  the  tenth  hour  will 
no  doubt  be  the  hour  between  9  and  10  a.  m. 

Yer.  40.  One  of  the  t-wo  vrhich  heard  from  John  and  fol- 
Icwed  him,  "was  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's  brother.  Andrew 
belonged  to  Bethsaida  (ver.  44),  and  is  again  referred  to  in  6 :  8,  12  : 
22.  That  he  is  now  spoken  of  as  the  brother  of  Peter  is  an  interest- 
ing indication  of  the  importance  attached  by  the  Evangelist  to  the 
latter.  There  is  little  reason  to  doubt  that  the  second  of  the  two  was 
the  Evangelist  himself.  Simon  Peter,  who  has  not  yet  been  men- 
tioned, is  introduced  to  us  here  as  if  he  were  well  known  to  the 
reader — an  illustration  of  the  writer's  tendency  to  anticipate  what  is 
hereafter  to  be  fully  explained:  we  have  an  equally  striking  instance 
in  the  mention  of  Mary  in  chap.  11:2. 

Yer.  41.  He  first  findeth  his  own  brother  Simon,  and 
saith  unto  him,  "We  have  found  the  Messiah  (vrhich  is,  be- 
ing interpreted,  Christ).  The  peculiar  language  of  this  verse 
leads  directly  to  the  conclusion  that  each  of  the  two  disciples  men- 


1:  42,  43.]  JOHX  I.  33 

42  preted,  ^Christ).  He  brought  him  unto  Jesus.  Je- 
sus looked  upon  him,  and  said,  Thou  art  Simon  the 
sou  of  "John:  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas  (which  is 
by  interpretation,  ^  Peter). 

43  On  the  morrow  he  was  minded  to  go  forth  into 
Galilee,  and  he  findeth  Philip  :    and   Jesus  saith  unto 

1  That  is,  Ariointed.  ^  Gr.  Joanes  :  called  in  Matt.  xvi.  17,  Junah. 

2  That  is,  Bock  or  Stone. 

tioned  in  the  previous  verse  had  gone  in  search  of  his  brother,  and 
the  fact  is  not  without  interest  as  confirming  the  supposition  that  the 
second  of  the  two  disciples  was  John.  Andrew  and  his  brother, 
John  and  his  brother,  seem  to  have  been  the  only  two  pairs  of 
brothers  in  the  apostolic  band.  The  finding  was  not  accidental.  An- 
drew had  gone  in  search  of  Peter,  John  of  James.  When  Andrew 
found  the  object  of  his  search,  his  joyful  announcement  was,  'We 
have  found  the  Messiah.'  This  Hebrew  term — occurring  only  twice 
in  the  2sew  Testament,  here  and  at  4  :  25,  in  the  mouth  of  the  woman 
of  Samaria — denotes  '  the  Anointed  One  ;"  and  is  immediately  inter- 
preted by  the  Evangelist,  the  Greek  word  '  Christ'  having  the  same 
meaning.     One  of  the  great  hopes  of  Israel  was  fulfilled. 

Ver.  42.  He  brought  him  to  Jesus.  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  Peter  had  shared  the  expectations  and  longings  of  his  brother 
xVndrew,  as  well  as  of  all  those  more  earnest  spirits  of  the  time  who 
were  waiting  for  '  the  consolation  of  Israel.'  He  too  had  been  '  seek- 
ing/ and  he  too  finds. — Jesus  looking  upon  him  said,  Thou 
art  Simon  the  son  of  John :  thou  shalt  be  called  Cephas. 
Jesus  looked  upon  him  with  that  divine  glance  which  read  the  heart 
(comp.  2:  25)  ;  and,  following  the  custom  of  which  so  many  illustra- 
tions are  afforded  in  the  Old  Testament,  marked  the  great  crisis  in  his 
life  which  had  now  arrived  by  giving  him  a  new  name.  ♦  Cephas,' 
with  which  corresponds  the  Greek  word  Petros  (a  '  stone'  or  '  piece  of 
rock').  How  much  importance  was  attached  by  the  Evangelist  to  this 
name  given  to  his  brother  apostle  will  appear  on  other  occasions  in 
the  course  of  his  Gospel.  The  name  Johannes,  or  John,  corresponds 
to  the  Hebrew  Jochanan  ;  in  Matt.  16:  17  the  same  name  is  repre- 
sented in  a  slightly  different  form   (Joua). 

Ver.  43.  The  next  day  he  would  go  forth  into  Galilee. 
On  this  day  begins  the  journey  consummated  at  chap.  2  :  1  (see  note). 
— And  he  findeth  Philip  ;  and  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Fol- 
lo-w  me.  The  first  two  disciples  had  '  sought'  and  '  followed'  Jesus  ; 
then  they  had  found  Him.  Now  Jesus  (seeks  and)  'finds'  Philip, 
and  bids  him  follow  Him  (compare  the  two  parables  in  Matt.  13  :  44, 
46).  We  are  left  to  infer  that  the  command  was  immediately  obeyed. 
The  calling  of  Philip  and  of  Xathanacl  is  recorded  by  John  alone  ; 
both  -Matthew  and  Mark,  relate  that  Jesus  called  to  Him  Andrew  and 
3 


34  JOHN  I.  [1:  44-46. 

44  him,  Follow  me.      Now  Philip  was  from  Bethsaida, 

45  of  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter.  Philip  findeth 
Nathanael,  and  saith  unto  him,  We  have  found  him, 
of  whom  Moses  in  the  law,  and  the  prophets,  did 

46  write,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  Son  of  Joseph.  And 
Nathanael  said  unto  him.  Can  any  good  thing  come 
out  of  Nazareth  ?      Philip  saith  unto  him,  Come  and 

Peter,  James  and  John  (Matt.  4:  18-22;  Mark  1 :  16-20;  compare 
Luke  5:  1-11)  ;  but  it  will  be  remembered  that  this  was  a  second  sum- 
mons, later  (by  some  months,  probably)  than  the  events  of  which  we 
are  reading  here. 

Ver.  44.  Notv  Philip  -was  of  Bethsaida,  out  of  the  city  of 
Andre-w  and  Peter.  This  verse  appears  to  be  inserted  for  the 
purpose  of  clearly  showing  that  these  three  disciples  were  Galileans. 
The  next  verse  would  lead  to  a  similar  inference  in  regard  to  Nathan- 
ael,  and  this  inference  is  confirmed  by  chap  21:2.  It  is  thus  an  un- 
designed (but  not  the  less  striking)  proof  of  the  Johannine  authorship 
of  this  Gospel  that  a  similar  statement  is  not  made  with  regard  to  the 
two  disciples  of  vers.  37-40.  John  is  aware  that  he  was  himself  well 
known  to  be  a  Galilean.  In  simple  consciousness  that  he  was  so,  and 
that  no  one  would  doubt  it,  he  omits  notice  of  the  fact  in  his  own  case 
and  that  of  his  brother.  But  he  felt  it  of  importance  to  bring  out  the 
Galilean  birth  of  the  others.  We  might  have  supposed  them  to  be  Ju- 
deans  ;  but  Judas  is  the  only  Judean  of  the  apostolic  circle.  The  im- 
portance of  the  fact  in  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist  is  connected  with 
the  opinion  entertained  by  him  of  '  the  Jews'  and  of  '  Judas.' 

Ver.  45.  Philip  findeth  Nathanael,  and  saith  unto  him,  "We 
have  found  him  of  whom  Moses  in  the  la-w,  and  the  prophets 
did  v/rite,  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph.  It  was  in 
all  probability  on  the  journey  from  Bethany  beyond  Jordan  to  Cana 
of  Galilee  that  Jesus  had  '  found'  Philip.  As  on  the  journey  recorded 
in  Luke  26  :  13,  the  conversation  turned  on  the  things  concerning 
the  promised  Saviour  which  were  contained  in  '  Moses  and  all  the 
prophets  ;'  and  to  this  conversation  the  particular  form  of  conviction 
impressed  upon  the  mind  of  Philip  was  due.  He  does  not  speak  of 
Jesus  simply  as  the  Messiah  (ver.  41),  but  as  the  fulfillment  of  the  law 
and  the  prophets.  There  is  an  advance  in  fulness  on  the  confession 
of  ver.  41,  and  the  special  chai-acter  of  the  advance  is  important;  it 
helps  to  explain  the  words  of  the  following  verse.  There  is  nothing 
accidental  in  the  finding  of  Nathanael.  Philip  had  gone  in  search  of 
him  in  particular.  Can  we  doubt  that  it  was  because  he  knew  him  to 
be  specially  fitted  and  ready  to  be  a  follower  of  Jesus  ? 

Ver.  46,  And  Nathanael  said  unto  him,  Can  there  any- 
good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  ?  Philip  saith  unto 
him,  Come  and  see.     The  mind  of  Nathanael  (who,  from  his  close 


1 :  47,  48.]  JOHN  I.  35 

47  see.     Jesus  saw  Nathanael  coming  to  him,  and  saith 
of  him,  Behold,  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom   is  no 

48  guile  !     Nathanael  saith  unto  him.  Whence  knowest 

association  with  Philip,  is  probably  to  be  identified  with  the  Barthol- 
omew of  the  earlier  Gospels)  is,  as  we  shall  more  fully  see  below  (vers, 
47,  48 1,  full  at  the  moment  of  that  prophetic  hope  the  fulfillment  of 
which  was  associated,  not  with  Nazareth,  but  with  Bethlehem  or  Je- 
rusalem. To  him  all  good  was  summed  up  in  the  thought  of  the  com- 
ing King ;  and  it  may  have  been  that  at  the  moment  a  place  uncon- 
nected with  the  great  promise  of  God  seemed  to  him  a  place  from 
which  no  good  could  come.  Such  considerations  go  far  towards  ex- 
plaining his  disparaging  remark  ;  though  they  do  not  completely  re- 
move the  impression  which  we  receive  from  the  words,  that  Nazareth 
was  a  place  held  in  v€ry  low  esteem.  We  have,  however,  no  other 
information  that  such  prejudice  (whether  well  or  ill  founded)  existed; 
and  the  only  notices  in  Scripture  which  can  throw  light  on  the  sub- 
ject are  the  records  of  the  obstinate  unbelief  of  the  Nazarenes  (Matt. 
13  :  58)  and  their  attempt  upon  the  life  of  Jesus  (Luke  4 :  29). 

Ver.  47.  Jesus  saw  Nathanael  coming  to  him,  and  saith 
of  him,  Behold,  an  Israelite  indeed,  in  whom  is  no  guile ! 
Again,  as  at  ver.  43,  we  are  left  to  infer  that  the  call  thus  addressed  to 
Nathanael  was  obeyed  ;  and  in  his  obedience  to  it  he  illustrates  the 
frame  of  mind  for  which  he  is  immediately  commended  by  Jesus.  He 
is  ingenuous,  willing  to  be  taught,  ready  to  receive  what  is  shown  to  him 
to  be  truth,  however  strougly  it  may  conflict  with  his  prepossessions. 
Jesus  saw  him  as  he  drew  near,  and  commended  him  as  a  genuine  Is- 
raelite in  whom  there  was  no  guile.  The  last  words  have  been  some- 
times understood  as  if  they  were  explanatory  of  the  term  Israelite,  that 
term,  again,  being  supposed,  together  with  the  word  '  guile,'  to  allude 
to  the  history  of  Jacob.  As  the  name  of  Jacob  (' supplanter')  was 
changed  to  Israel  ('  prince  of  God')  the  characteristic  of  this  patri- 
arch's true  descendants  will  be  absence  of  guile.  The  suggestion  is 
ingenious,  but  for  several  reasons  hardly  tenable.  (1)  It  is  guile  of  an 
entirely  different  kind  that  is  here  referred  to  ;  (2)  There  is  no  spe- 
cial connection  between  the  qufxlities  displayed  by  Jacob  on  the  occa- 
sion when  he  received  the  name  Israel  and  those  that  here  distinguish 
Nathanael;  (3)  The  part  of  Jacob's  history  present  to  the  mind  of 
Jesus,  in  ver.  51,  was  the  vision  at  Bethel,  which  belongs  to  a  period 
much  earlier  than  that  in  which  his  name  was  changed  ;  (4)  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  'Israelite'  is  intended  to  convey  no  meaning 
beyond  absence  of  guile.  It  is  rather  to  be  taken  as  denoting  one  who 
belongs  to  the  true  people  of  God  (comp.  ver.  31);  and  the  words 
that  follow  are  then  added  to  bring  out  its  special  meaning  upon  this 
occasion.  Nathanael,  in  short,  is  '  of  God,'  is  '  of  the  truth, 'has  no 
selfish  impure  aims,  and  therefore  he  shall  be  fully  taught. 

Ver.  48.  Nathanael  saith  unto  him,  Whence  knowest 
thou  me  ?     The  words  of  Jesus  had  been  spoken  while  Nathanael 


36  JOHN  I.  [1 :  49. 

thou    me  ?    Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Be- 
fore  Philip   called  thee,  when   thou  wast  under  the 
49  fig  tree,  I  saw  thee.     Nathanael  answered  him,  Rabi- 
bi,  thou  art  the  Son  of  God  ;  thou  art  King  of  Israel. 

was  drawing  near,  and  the  latter  heard  them.  He  does  not  deny  the 
truth  of  the  commendation,  and  yet  it  can  hardly  be  said,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  he  accepts  it.  It  is  enough  for  him  that  he  sees  that  he  is  not 
discerned  by  one  whom  he  had  previously  met,  and  what  he  asks  is, 
Whence  gettest  Thou  Thy  knowledge  of  me?  Who  has  told  The^  any- 
thing about  me?— Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Before 
that  Philip  caUed  thee,  -when  thou  wast  under  the  fig  tree, 
I  saw  thee.  Jesus  replies  by  referring  to  a  previous,  probably  re- 
cent, incident  in  his  history.  The  heart  of  the  guileless  man  had 
been  so  moved  by  the  great  thoughts  stirring  at  that  time  with  respect 
to  the  Saviour  at  hand,  that  he  had  retired  under  a  fig  tree  to  study 
the  Scriptures,  or  meditate,  or  pray.  It  is  this  that  (as  the  Greek  im- 
plies) is  now  brought  to  his  recollection — not  his  heing  under  the  fig 
ti'ee,  but  his  having  gone  under  it ;  and  we  are  thus  rather  invited  than 
forbidden  to  suppose  that  the  emotions  filling  his  heart  at  the  moment, 
and  impelling  him  to  seek  solitude,  had  been  peculiarly  strong.  Then 
Jesus  had  seen  him,  and  had  recognized  in  him  one  of  His  sheep,  just 
as  His  sheep  recognize  Him  (10:  16).  If  the  incident  had  taken 
place  in  Nathanael's  own  Cana,  it  must  have  been  all  the  more  strik- 
ing to  him  that  it  should  thus  be  known.  But,  however  this  may  have 
been,  these  wonderful  words  of  Jesus,  coming  suddenly  upon  him 
after  long  preparation  for  them  and  after  the  instructions  just  given 
by  Philip,  at  once  set  his  heart  on  fire,  and  drew  from  him  the  mem- 
orable confession  which  follows. 

Ver.  49.  Nathanael  answ^ered  him.  Rabbi,  Thou  art  the 
Son  of  God ;  Thou  art  King  of  Israel.  The  confession  is  the 
highest  that  has  yet  been  made,  for  it  is  impossible  to  understand 
'  Son  of  God '  as  the  simple  equivalent  of  Messiah  (see  note  on  ver. 
34).  Yet  it  is  a  confession  coming  out  of  the  very  heart  of  Old  Tes- 
tament prophecy,  and  to  be  accounted  for  by  those  circumstances  of 
Nathanael' s  past  history  and  present  position  that  have  been  already 
noticed.  It  was  not  merely  of  a  great  Deliverer  that  the  prophets 
had  spoken.  They  had  spoken  not  less  of  Jehovah  Himself  as  com- 
ing, and  as  coming  to  be  their  Deliverer  and  their  King.  In  the  se- 
cond Psalm,  in  particular,  we  find  the  two  ideas  of  the  Son  of  God 
and  of  Zion's  King  closely  conjoined;  and  in  the  seventy-second 
Psalm  the  psalmist  had  described  in  glowing  language  that  kingdom 
of  peace  and  righteousness,  extending  over  the  whole  earth,  of  which 
a  shadow  and  type  were  afforded  by  the  reign  of  Solomon.  But  if  it 
be  undeniable  that  these  ideas  were  imbedded  in  the  Old  Testament, 
there  is  nothing  inconceivable  in  their  being  gathered  from  it  and 
enunciated  by  these  who  in  meditation  and  prayer  had  caught  its 


1:  50,  51.]  JOHN  I.  37 

50  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Because  I  said 
unto  thee,  I  saAV  thee  underneath  the  fig  tree,  believ- 
est  thou  ?    thou  shalt  see  greater  things  than  these. 

51  And  he  saith  unto  him,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  Ye  shall  see  the  heaven  opened,  and  the  angels 

spirit.  Arid  to  this  the  self-evidencing  power  of  the  Person  of  Jesus, 
which  must  have  been  so  much  more  to  Nathanael  than  the  mere  re- 
cord can  be  to  us,  and  we  need  not  wonder  that  he  should  thus  ac- 
knowledge Jesus,  Nor  is  there  any  warrant  for  describing  his  feel- 
ings as  vague.  What  he  did  was  to  rise  to  the  height  of  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy ;  what  he  saw  was  that  ihis  must  be  Jehovah  that  Avas 
to  come,  the  universal  King.  The  three  confessions  have  risen  as  they 
have  succeeded  one  another.  Higlier  than  the  last  they  cannot  rise. 
The  Lord  Himself  is  come  ;  His  kingdom  is  without  limit  and  without 
end. 

Ver.  50.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Because  I 
said  unto  thee,  I  saw  thee  under  the  fig  tree,  believest 
thou  ?  Thou  shalt  see  greater  things  than  these.  An  inti- 
mation of  that  growth  of  divine  revelation  which  this  Gospel  teaches 
us  shall  be  made  the  portion  of  all, — of  some  to  an  ever-increasing 
fulness  of  blessing,  of  others  to  an  ever-increasing  fulness  of  judg- 
ment. For  the  one,  see  chap.  14:  12;  for  the  other,  chap.  5:  20. 
These  *  greater  things '  are  more  particularly  mentioned  in  the  next 
verse. 

Ver.  51.  And  he  saith  unto  him  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you.  This  is  the  first  occasion  on  which  we  find  the  repeated  '  Ver- 
ily,' so  characteristic  of  the  discourses  related  in  this  Gospel.  The 
formula  is  always  employed  to  mark  some  important  step  in  a  dis- 
course, where  the  words  of  Jesus  either  tak^some  new  start,  or  rise 
to  some  higher  stage.  Both  these  conditions  are  fulfilled  in  the  verse 
before  us.  As  to  the  first,  it  will  be  observed  that  Jesus  no  longer 
addresses  Nathanael  alone :  the  plural  instead  of  the  singular  is  used 
and  we  must  understand  that  He  is  speaking  to  all  the  disciples.  As 
to  the  second,  again,  the  words  of  themselves  suggest  the  hi/her  stage 
of  revelation  promised. — Ye  shall  see  heaven  open,  and  the 
angels  of  God  ascending  and  descending  upon  the  Son  of 
man.  The  figure  is  taken  from  Jacob's  dream  (Gen.  28:  12).  A 
wanderer  from  his  father's  house  and  country,  he  is  encouraged  by  a 
vision  which  teaches  him  that  earth  is  united  with  heaven,  and  that 
God's  messengers  descend  to  minister  to  those  who  are  the  objects  of 
God's  care.  If  the  ascent  of  the  angels  is  mentioned  (in  Gen.  28)  hrfore 
the  descent,  this  is  because  to  Jacob  is  shown  an  intercourse  that  already 
exists,  not  one  that  now  begins.  Some  angels  are  already  returning 
from  earth,  their  ministries  accomplished.  What  .Jacob  saw  in  vision 
is  now  in  the  highest  sense  fulfilled.  There  is  real  and  unceasing  in- 
tercourse between  earth  and  heaven.     It  is  to  Jesus  that  the  angela 


38  JOHN  I.  [1 :  51. 

of  God  ascending  and  descending  upon  the  Son  of 
man. 

descend ;  it  is  from  Him  that  they  return  to  heaven  ;  through  His 
presence  on  earth  this  union  between  earth  and  heaven  exists.     Even 
though  He  is  in  His  state  of  humiliation,  it  is  His  bidding  that  the 
angels  do.     Perhaps  it  is  this  thought  that  accounts  for  the  mention 
(in  this  verse)  of  the  ascending  angels  first.     These  words  have  no 
direct  reference  to  the  angelic  visits  received  by  Jesus  at  different 
points  of  His  earthly  ministry  ;  still  less  can  we  refer  them  to  mir.icles 
to  be  hereafter  performed,  greater  even  than  that  displayed  to  Nathan- 
ael,  miracles  of  which  the  next  chapter  will  furnish  the  first  exam- 
ple.    We  have  simply  a  symbolical  representation  of  the  fact  that 
through  the  Incarnation  and  sulferings  of  Jesus  heaven  is  opened,  is 
brought  into  the  closest  and  most  constant  communion  with  earth,  so 
that  the  latter  is  itself  ti'ansfigured  with  the  glory  of  God's  special 
abode.     This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  two  circumstances  men- 
tioned in  the  verse  :     1 )  Nathanael  is  to  see  '  heaven  standing  open,' 
— not  '  opened '    as  if  it  might  again  be  closed,  but  opened  so  as  to 
continue  open.     It  is  the  complete  withdrawal  of  the  inner  veil  of  the 
Tabernacle,  so  that  all  the  children  of  God,  now  made  priests  and 
high  priests  unto  God,  even  the  Father,  may  pass  freely  into  th^  in- 
nermost sanctuary  and  out  of  it  again  without  interruption  and  with- 
out end.     (2)   Jesus  speaks  of  Himself  as  the  'Son  of  man.'     This 
important  designation,  often  used  by  Jesus  of  Himself,  once  only  used 
of  Him  by  another  (Acts  7 :  5G),  is  not,  as  some  maintain,  a  simple 
equivalent  of  '  Messiah.'     It  expresses  rather  One  i:i  whom  all  that 
truly  belongs  to  humanity  is  realized,  and  by  whom  it  is  represented, 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  man,  connected  with  no  special  race,  or  class,  or 
condition,  equally  associated  with  all,  equally  near  to  all,  in  whom  all 
are  equally  interested,  and  may  be  equally  blessed.     The  designation 
is  not  a  fourth  confession,  additional  to  the  three  that  have  been  al- 
ready made,  for  it  comes  from  the  lips  of  Jesus  Himself.     It  is  rather 
that  in  which  all  the  confessions  meet,  the  expression  of  the  Personal- 
ity to  which  they  all  belong.     Jesus  is  the  Incarnate  Word,  and  as 
such  He  is  the  '  Messiah,'  the  One  '  of  whom  ]Moses  in  the  law  and 
the  pi'ophets  did  write,'  the  '  Son  of  God  and  King  ( f  Israel.'     Every 
child  of  humanity,  realizing  his  true  humanity  in  Him,  has  as  his  own 
the  blessings  a'-sociated  with  th^^se  three  aspects  of  the  Redeemer,    He 
is  anointed  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  lives  in  that  love  which  is  the  fulfil- 
ling of  the  law,  is  a  son  in  the  house  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  himself 
a  king.     These  are  the  '  greater  things '  which  every  one  who  is  an 
'Israelite  indeed'   shall  see  in  the   new  creation  introduced  by  the 
'  Word  become  flesli,'  and  enlightened  by  the  full  brightness  of  that 
Light  in  whose  presence  old  things  pass  away,  and  all  things  are  made 
new. 


2:  1.]  JOHN  II.  •  89 

Chapter  2 :  1-11. 

The  Ilirade  at  Cana  of  Galilee. 

1      And  the  third  day  there  was  a  marriage  in  Cana  of 

The  Miracle  at  Cana  of  Galilee. — Vers.  1^11. 

Contents. — The  general  subject  of  the  second  great  division  of  the  Gospel  is  con- 
tinued in  this  section.  It  contains  an  account  of  the  miracle  at  Cana  of  Galilee,  in 
which,  as  we  are  told  at  ver.  11,  Jesus  '  manifested  His  glory.'  The  Kedeemer  is  still 
in  the  circle  of  His  disciples  and  friends,  and  there  are  no  traces  of  His  approaching 
conflict  with  the  world.  Our  thoughts  are  directed  solely  to  Himself,  and  to  the 
glorious  nature  of  that  dispensation  which  He  is  to  introduce. 

[This  miracle  of  transformation  is  a  fit  beginning  of  Christ's  works.  His  whole 
mission  was  to  transform  sinners  into  saints,  grief  into  joy,  the  woi'ld  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  It  is  also  significant  that  he  began  His  miracles  in  the  bosom  of  the 
famih/,  which  is  the  first  institution  of  God  on  earth,  and  the  nursery  of  the  state  and 
the  church.  His  presence,  with  His  mother  and  disciples,  at  a  woddiag  feiust  sanctifies 
and  elevates  marriage  and  every  innocent  joy,  and  condemns  that  monkish  asceticism 
which  flees  away  from  society  instead  of  leavening  it  with  the  gospel,  and  which 
hates  the  order  of  nature  instead  of  elevating  it  to  the  sphere  of  divine  grace. — P.  S.] 

Ver.  1.  And  the  third  day.  The  third  day,  as  reckoned  from 
the  day  last  mentioned  (chap.  1 :  43-51) ;  the  sixth  day  referred  to  in 
these  chapters.  The  first  is  the  day  of  the  Baptist's  interview,  at 
Bethany,  with  the  priests  and  Levites  sent  from  Jerusalem  (1 :  19-28). 
On  the  second  (1 :  29-34),  John  bears  testimony  to  Jesus  as  the  Lamb 
of  God.  The  third  is  the  day  on  which  the  two  disciples  follow  Jesus 
(1  :  35-42).  On  the  next  day  Jesus  sets  out  for  Galilee  (1 :  43).  That 
day,  the  next,  and  part  of  the  third  day  may  have  been  spent  in  trav- 
elling ;  for,  if  Bethany  was  in  the  neig-hborhood  of  Bethabara,  and  if 
the  latter  may  be  identified  with  the  modern  Beit-nimrim,  the  dis- 
tance traversed  even  to  Nazareth  must  have  been  more  than  eighty 
English  miles.  Very  possibly,  however,  Bethany  may  have  lain  far- 
ther north  (see  note  on  chap.  1 :  21). — There  was  a  marriage,  or 
marriage-feast.  The  feast,  which  was  the  chief  constituent  in  the 
ceremonies  attending  marriage,  extended  over  several  days, — as  seven 
(Gen.  29:  27;  Judg.  14:  12),  or  even  fourteen  (Tobit  8:  19).— In 
Cana  of  Galilee.  There  is  a  Kanah  mentioned  in  the  book  of 
Joshua  (19  :  28)  as  one  of  the  towns  in  the  territory  of  Asher,  situated 
near  Zidon.  This  cannot  be  the  place  referred  to  here.  No  other 
town  of  the  same  name  is  mentioned  by  any  sacred  writer  except 
John,  who  in  every  instance  marks  the  place  as  Cana  of  Galilee. 
From  this  many  have  hastily  inferred  that  '  of  Galilee '  was  part  of 
the  name,  distinguishing  this  village  from  some  other  Cana, — perhaps 
from  that  mentioned  above,  which  (though  really  within  the  limits  of 
Galilee)  lay  near  to  Phoenicia.  Two  villages  of  Galilee  claim  to  be  the 
Cana  of  this  chapter, — Kefr-Kenna,  four  or  five  miles  north-east  of 
Nazareth ;  and  Khurbet-Cana,  about  eleven  miles  north  of  the  same 


40  JOHN  II.  [2 :  2,  3. 

2  Galilee ;    and  the  mother  of   Jesus  was  there :    and 
Jesus  also  was  bidden,  and  his  disciples,  to  the  mar- 

3  riage.     And  when  the  wine  failed,  the  mother  of  Je- 

place.  The  latter  village  is  usually  said  to  bear  the  name  Kana-el-Je- 
lil  (i.  e.  Cana  of  Galilee)  ;  if  so,  and  if  the  antiquity  of  the  name 
could  be  established,  this  might  be  decisive,  although  even  then  it 
would  be  hard  to  understand  how  Christian  ti^adition  could  so  long  re- 
gar  1  Kefr-Kenna  as  the  scene  of  our  Lords  first  miracle,  when  within 
a  few  miles  there  existed  a  place  bearing  the  very  name  found  in  the 
Gospel.  The  question  cannot  be  further  discussed  here :  we  will  only 
express  a  strong  conviction  that  Kefr-Kenna  is  the  Cana  of  our  narra- 
tive. It  seems  probable  that  John  himself  has  added  the  words  '  of 
Galilee,'  that  he  may  lay  stress  upon  the  j^rovince,  not  the  town.  To 
him  the  point  of  main  interest  is,  that  this  manifestation  of  the  Sav- 
iour's glory  took  place  in  Galilee. — And  the  mother  of  Jesus  -was 
there, — already  present  as  a  friend,  possibly  a  i-elative.  Mary  comes 
before  us  twice  in  this  Gospel,  at  the  commencement  and  at  the  close 
of  our  Lord's  public  life  (2:  1-11,  and  19:  25-27),  and  is  also  refer- 
red to  in  another  passage  (6 :  42) ;  but  she  is  never  mentioned  by 
name.  As  for  his  own  name,  the  Evangelist  always  substitutes  words 
expressive  of  relationship  to  Jesus  ('  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved'), 
so  with  him  Mary's  name  gives  place  to  '  the  mother  of  Jesus.'  Both 
here  and  in  chap.  19  his  designation  has  special  significance.  It  ex- 
presses not  only  the  light  in  which  she  appeared  to  John,  but  that  in 
which  he  knew  that  she  appeared  to  lesus.  It  is  essential  to  the  spirit 
of  the  narrative  to  behold  in  Jesus  one  who,  with  the  warmest  filial 
afi"ection,  acknowledged  Mary  ae  His  mother.  Thus  only  do  we  see 
the  yielding  of  the  very  closest  earthly  relationship  to  yet  higher 
claims.  The  word  of  Jesus,  '  He  that  loveth  father  or  mother  more 
than  me  is  not  worthy  of  me,'  must  in  its  spirit  be  exemplified  in  His 
own  case.  Most  fitting,  therefore,  is  the  use  of  the  tenderest  designa- 
tion here.  All  that  is  dear  and  sacred  in  the  name  of  mother  was  felt 
by  Him  in  its  deepest  reality  at  the  very  time  when  He  showed  that 
every  earthly  tie  must  give  way  at  the  call  of  His  Father  in  heaven. 

Ver.  2.  And  Jesus  also  -was  called,  and  his  disciples,  to 
the  marriage.  The  form  of  the  sentence  shows  that  our  chief  atten- 
tion is  to  be  fixed  on  Jesus,  not  on  the  disciples.  They  were  invited 
as  His  disciples.  Those  wlio  came  were  probably  the  five  or  six  men- 
tionel  in  chap.  1,  viz.  Andrew,  Simon  Peter,  Philip,  Nathanael,  and 
John  himself  (and  probably  James). 

Ver.  3.  And  when  wine  was  wanting.  The  failure  (which 
must  be  understood  as  complete)  may  have  been  occasioned  by  the 
long  continuance  of  the  festivities,  but  more  probably  arose  from  the 
presence  of  several  unexpected  guests. — The  mother  of  Jesus 
saith  unto  him,  They  have  no  wine.  Nothing  was  more  natu- 
ral than  that  Mary  should  be  the  one  fo  point  out  to  lier  Son  tlie  per- 
plexity of  the  family ;  but  the  whole  tenor  of  the  narrative  compels 


2 :  4.]  JOHN  II.  41 

4  sus  saith  unto  him,  They  have  no  wine.     And  Jesus 
saith   unto  her,  Woman,  what   have   I   to    do  with 

attention  to  one  thought  alone.  The  absolute  singleness  with  which 
Jesus  listens  to  the  voice  of  His  heavenly  Father  is  the  point  to  be 
brought  out.  Had  it  been  consistent  with  His  mission  to  lend  help  at 
the  suramons  of  any  human  authority,  no  bidding  would  have  been  so 
powerful  as  that  of  His  mother.  Many  conjectures  as  to  Mary's  ob- 
ject in  these  words  are  at  once  set  aside  by  the  nature  of  His  answer. 
Tliere  may  have  been  in  her  mind  no  d'-finite  idea  of  the  kind  of  help 
that  might  be  afforded,  but  she  felt  that  help  was  needed,  and  that 
what  was  needed  could  be  given  by  her  Son.  The  reply  of  Jesus, 
however,  shows  that,  besides  perplexity  and  faith,  there  was  also  pre- 
sumption in  Mary's  words:  she  spoke  as  one  who  still  had  the  right 
to  suggest  and  to  influence  His  action. 

Verr4.  And  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  "Woman,  what  have  I 
to  do  "with  thee  ?  The  English  words  convey  an  impression  of 
disrespect  and  harshness  which  is  absent  from  the  original.  This  use 
of  the  Greek  word  for  '  woman  '  is  consistent  with  the  utmost  respect. 
In  Homer,  for  example  [Iliad,  24  :  300),  Priam  thus  addresses  Hecuba, 
his  queen,  and  other  examples  of  the  same  kind  might  easily  be  given. 
This  Gospel  itself  shows  that  the  word  is  not  out  of  place  where  the 
deepest  love  and  compassion  are  expressed  :  see  chap.  19  :  26  ;  20  :  13, 
15.  Yet  the  contrast  of  '  woman  '  and  '  mother '  must  strike  every 
one  who  reads  with  attention.  The  relation  of  mother,  however  pre- 
cious in  its  own  sphere,  cannot  be  allowed  to  enter  into  that  in  which 
Jesus  now  stands.  John  does  not  relate  the  incident  recorded  in 
Matt.  12 :  46-50 :  Mark  3  :  31-35 ;  Luke  8 :  19-21  ;  but  the  same 
thought  is  present  here.  Still  more  distinctly  is  this  lesson  taught  in 
the  words  that  follow,  '  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee?  '  The  rendering 
defended  by  some  Roman  Catholic  writers  (though  not  found  in  the 
Vulgate,  or  in  the  Rhemish  Testament  of  1852),  *  What  is  that  to  thee 
and  me?  ' — that  is,  '  Why  should  we  concern  ourselves  with  this  fail- 
ure of  the  wine  ?  ' — is  altogether  impossible.  The  phrase  is  a  common 
one,  occurring  in  Judg.  11:  12;  2  Sam.  16:  10,  19 :  22 ;  1  Kings  17: 
18;  2  Kings  3:  13;  2  Chron.  35:  21  ;  Matt.  8:  29;  Mark  1 :  24,  5: 
7  ;  Luke  4 :  34,  8 :  28 :  comp.  also  Josh.  22  :  24 ;  2  Kings  9:18: 
Ezra  4:3;  Matt.  27  :  19.  These  passages  show  beyond  doubt  the 
meaning  of  the  words:  whoever  makes  use  of  the  phrase  rejects  the 
interference  of  another,  declines  association  with  him  on  the  matter 
spoken  of.  Hence  the  words  reprove,  though  mildly.  They  do  more ; 
in  them  .Jesus  warns  even  His  mother  against  attempting  henceforth 
to  prescribe  or  suggest  what  He  is  to  do.  Thus  understood,  the  words 
are  an  irresistible  argument  against  the  Mariolatry  of  Rome. — Mine 
hour  is  not  yet  come.  In  two  other  places  in  this  Gospel  Jesus 
refers  to  the  coming  of  •  the  hour '(12 :  23;  17:  1);  and  three  times 
John  speaks  of  His  hour  as  not  yet  come  ( 7 :  30 ;  8  :  20),  or  as  now 
come  (13 :  1).     The  other  passages  throw  light  on  this,  showing  the 


42  JOHN  II.  [2:  5,6. 

5  thee  ?  mine  hour  is  not  yet  come.     His  mother  saith 
unto  the  servants,  Whatsoever  he  saith  unto  you,  do 

6  it.     Now  there  were  six  waterpots  of  stone  set  there 
after  the  Jews'  manner  of  purifying,  containing  two 

peculiar  solemnity  which  belongs  to  the  words  before  us.  In  every 
instance  'the  hour'  is  fraught  with  momentous  issues: — 'the  hour' 
when  the  restraint  put  upon  His  foes  shall  continue  no  longer;  when 
He  shall  pass  away  from  the  world  to  His  Father ;  when  He  shall  be 
glorified.  So  here  the  hour  is  that  of  the  manifestation  of  His  glory. 
The  language  used  in  chap.  13  :  1  and  17  :  1,  together  with  the  general 
teaching  of  the  Gospel,  shows  that  the  hour  is  not  self-chosen,  but  is 
that  appointed  by  the  Father.  He  came  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that 
sent  Him,  the  apj  ointed  work  at  the  appointed  time.  That  time  none 
may  hasten  or  delay  by  a  single  instant.  If,  then,  the  miracle  quickly 
followed  upon  these  words,  which  would  seem  to  have  been  the  case, 
this  can  present  no  difficulty  ;  the  Son  waited  for  the  very  moment 
chosen  by  the  Father's  will. 

Ver.  5.  His  mother  saith  unto  the  servants,  "Whatsoever 
he  saith  unto  you,  do  it.  The  answer  of  Jesus  (ver.  4)  plainly 
implied  that  His  hour  would  come.  Mary,  therefore,  turns  to  the 
servants,  and  bids  them  be  ready.  The  words  are  indefinite,  and  we 
have  no  right  to  suppose  either  that  she  now  looked  for  miraculous 
help,  or  that  she  had  received  some  private  intimation  of  her  Son's 
purpose.  She  waits  for  the  hour :  whatsoever  the  hour  may  bring,  let 
the  servants  be  prepared  to  do  His  bidding.  Mary  here  retires  from 
the  scene. 

Ver.  6.  And  there  were  there  six  waterpots  of  stone, 
placed  after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews, 
containing  two  or  three  firkins  apiece.  The  waterpots  were 
near  at  hand, — in  the  court  or  at  the  entrance  to  the  house,  not  in  the 
house  itself.  Considering  the  many  washings  and  purifyings  of  the 
Jews,  there  is  nothing  to  surprise  us  in  the  number  or  in  the  size  of 
the  waterpots.  Even  a  small  family  might  easily  possess  six,  and 
when  the  number  of  guests  was  large,  each  of  them  would  naturally 
be  in  use.  There  is  much  uncertainty  as  to  the  value  of  Hebrew  mea- 
sures whether  of  length  or  of  capacity.  Most  probably  the  measure 
here  mentioned  was  equivalent  to  between  eight  and  nine  of  our  im- 
perial gallons.  If  each  waterpot  contained  two  '  firkins '  and  a  half, 
the  whole  quantity  of  water  would  be  about  130  gallons. — On  the 
words  '  of  the  Jews,'  see  the  note  on  chap.  1 :  19.  Even  here  the 
phrase  is  not  without  significance.  When  we  have  set  ourselves  free 
from  our  prevailing  habit  of  using  this  term  simply  as  a  national  de- 
signation, we  cannot  but  feel  that  the  Evangelist  is  writing  of  that 
with  which  he  has  entirely  broken,  and  is  characterizing  tlie  ordinary 
religion  of  his  day  as  one  that  consisted  in  ceremonies  and  external 
purifications. 


2 :  7, 8.]  JOHN  II.  43 

7  or  three  firkins  apiece.     Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Fill 
the  waterpots  with  water.     And  they  tilled  them  up 

8  to  the  brim.     And  he  saith  unto  them,  Draw  out 
pow,  and  bear  unto  the  ^  ruler  of  the  feast.     And 

iQr,  steward. 

Yer.  7.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Fill  the  waterpots  with 
■water.  Probably  they  were  now  empty,  perhaps  in  consequence  of 
the  ablutions  before  the  feast. — And  they  filled  them  up  to  the 
brim.  And  when  they  are  thus  filled,  nothing  more  can  be  done  to 
fit  them  for  their  original  design.  They  are  able  to  furnish  all  that 
can  be  supplied  for  '  the  purifying  of  the  Jews.' 

Yer.  8.  And  he  saith  unto  them,  Draw  now,  and  bear 
unto  the  ruler  of  the  feast.  As  the  words  are  commonly  under- 
stood, *.he  servants  are  bidden  to  bring  to  the  table  (in  smaller  jars  or 
bowls)  part  of  the  contents  of  the  larger  vessels,  which  were  them- 
selves *.oo  unwieldy  to  be  moved  without  difficulty.  If  this  be  the 
meani>»g,  we  must  still  ask.  What  was  it  that  was  drawn,  water  or 
wine  ?  Many  will  answer,  wine,  believing  that  the  point  at  which  the 
miraHe  is  effected  comes  in  between  the  seventh  and  eighth  verses, 
and  »,hat  all  the  water  in  the  vessels  was  then  made  wine.  The  strong 
argument  in  favor  of  this  interpretation  is  the  exactness  with  Avhich 
the  number  and  size  of  the  vessels  are  specified  ;  and  no  difficulty 
need  be  found  in  the  abundance  of  the  supply.  *  He,  a  King,  gave  as 
became  a  king'  (Trench).  Still  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  that  leads 
necessarily  to  this  interpretation ;  while  the  language  of  ver.  9,  '  the 
servants  who  had  drawn  the  tvater,'  distinctly  suggests  that  what 
they  drew  was  water,  which,  either  as  soon  as  drawn,  or  as  soon  as 
presented  to  the  guests,  became  wine.  But  there  is  yet  another  ex- 
planation (suggested  in  Dr.  Westcott's  Chdracteristics  of  the  Gospel  Mira- 
cles, p.  1-5),  having  much  in  its  favor.  The  Authorized  Version  (ver. 
8)  gives  the  command  to  the  servants  as  'Draw  out  now,'  etc..  plainly 
implying  that  it  was  out  of  the  waterpots  that  they  were  bidden  to 
draw.  But  the  original  word  is  simply  '  draw,'  or  '  draw  water.' 
This  would  seem  to  suggest  that  the  servants  were  sent  again  to  the 
spring  or  fountain  from  which  they  had  drawn  the  water  to  fill  the 
waterpots.  First,  the  vessels  set  for  the  purifying  of  the  Jews  are 
completely  filled.  Nothing  is  neglected  that  can  be  needed  to  prepare 
for  all  ceremonial  requirements.  There  the  water  re-^ts,  and  rests  un- 
changed. Not  till  now  is  the  water  drawn  for  thfe  thirsty  guests,  in 
bowls  filled,  not  from  vessels  of  purification,  but  at  the  spring  itself; 
it  is  borne  to  the  ruler  of  the  feast,  and  it  is  wine !  The  decision  be- 
tween the  last  two  interpretations  must  be  left  with  the  reader  ;  it  will 
probably  rest  less  on  the  words  of  the  narrative  than  on  the  view 
which  is  taken  of  the  significance  and  meaning  of  the  miracle.  See 
below  on  ver.  11. — By  'the  ruler  of  the  feast'  is  meant  either  an  up- 
per servant,  to  whom  was  intrusted  the  duty  of  tasting  the  different 


44  JOHN  II.  [2:  9-11. 

9  they  bare  it.  And  when  the  ruler  of  the  feast  tasted 
the  water  ^now  become  Avine,  and  knew  not  whence  it 
was  (but  the  servants  Avhich  had  drawn  the  water 
knew),  the  ruler  of  the  feast  calleth  the  bridegroom, 

10  and  saith  unto  him,  Every  man  setteth  on  first  the 
good  wine;  and  when  men  have  drunk  freely,  then 
that  which  is  worse :  thou  hast  kept  the  good  wine 

11  until  now.  This  beginning  of  his  signs  did  Jesus  in 
Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  his  glory;  and  his 
disciples  believed  on  him. 

»  Or,  that  it  had  i 


drinks  and  articles  of  food,  and,  in  general,  of  superintending  all  the 
arrangements  of  the  feast;  or  one  of  the  guests  acting  as  president  of 
the  feast,  at  tiie  request  of  the  bridegroom  or  by  election  of  the  guests. 
The  latter  view  is  ftivored  by  our  knowledge  of  Jewish  usages  (comp. 
Ecclus.  32  :  1,  2),  and  by  the  fact  that  the  ruler  is  spoken  of  as  distinct 
from  the  servants,  and,  as  the  next  verse  shows,  was  ignorant  of  the 
source  from  which  the  wine  was  supplied. 

Vers.  9,  10.  In  these  verses  we  have  the  testimony  borne  to  the 
completeness  of  the  miracle.  The  ruler  of  the  feast,  a  guest  speaking 
as  the  representative  of  the  guests,  calling  the  bridegroom  (who  sup- 
plied the  feast,  and  in  whose  house  they  were),  emphatically  recog- 
nizes the  excellence  of  the  wine,  not  knowing  '  whence  it  was.'  '  From 
whatever  source  this  may  have  come,  it  is  wine,  and  good  wine :'  this 
is  his  witness. — '  Whatever  it  may  be,  it  has  but  now  flowed  from  the 
spring  as  water,'  is  the  unexpressed  but  implied  testimony  of  the  ser- 
vants. The  simplicit}'^  of  the  double  witness  gives  it  its  force  ;  the 
guests  as  yet  know  nothing  of  the  miracle,  and  thus  afford  the  strong- 
est evidence  of  its  truth.  An  attempt  is  sometimes  made  to  soften 
down  an  expression  used  by  the  ruler  of  the  feast,  '  when  men  are 
drunken.'  There  need,  however,  be  no  scruple  as  to  giving  the  word 
its  ordinary  meaning.  The  remark  does  but  express  his  surprise  at 
the  ])ridegroom's  departure  from  the  ordinary  custom,  in  bringing  in 
so  late  wine  of  such  excellence  as  this.  The  common  maxim  was  that 
the  best  wine  should  be  given  first,  when  it  could  be  appreciated  by 
the  guests  ;  the  weak  and  poorer  when  they  had  drunk  moore  than 
enough,  and  the  edge  of  their  taste  was  blunted.  No  answer  is  re- 
coi-ded, — a  plain  proof,  were  any  needed,  that  the  Evangelist  values 
the  incident  not  so  much  for  its  own  sake  as  for  the  lesson  it  conveys. 

Ver.  11.  This  did  Jesus  as  the  beginning  of  his  signs,  in 
Cana  of  Galilee,  and  manifested  his  glory  ;  and  his  dis- 
ciples believed  on  him.  This,  Ills  first  sign,  was  wrought  in 
Galilee,  where  Isaiah  (9:  1,  2)  prophesied  that  Me-siah's  work  should 
begin.     The  threefold  comment  of  the  Evangelist  is  of  the  utmost  im- 


2:  12.]  JOHN  II.  45 

Chapter  2  :  12-22. 

T}te  Transition  to  the  Public  3Hnistry,  and  the 

Cleansing  of  the  Temple. 

12       After  this  he  went  down  to  Capernaum,  he,  and 

portance.  This  was  a  sign,  and  His  first  sign ;  in  it  He  manifested 
His  glory  ;  His  disciples  believed  in  Him.  'Sign'  is  one  of  John's 
favorite  words.  Of  the  three  words  used  in  the  New  Testament  to 
denote  a  miracle,  the  first  (literally  meaning  '  power')  is  not  once 
found  in  his  Gospel ;  the  second  ('prodigy,'  '  wonder 'j  occurs  once 
only  (4:  48);  the  third,  'sign,'  as  many  as  seventeen  times.  The 
earliest  use  of  '  sign'  in  connection  with  a  miracle  is  in  Ex.  4 :  8,  and 
the  context  makes  the  meaning  very  clear  :  the  miracle  was  the  sign 
of  an  invisible  Divine  Presence  with  Moses,  and  hence  it  attested  his 
words.  Thus  also,  when  the  manna  was  given,  the  miracle  manifested 
the  glory  of  the  Lord  (Ex.  16  :  7).  The  miracles  of  Jesus,  and  all 
His  works,  manifested  not  only  God's  glory  (8:  50),  but  His  own: 
they  were  signs  of  what  He  is.  This  gives  a  new  starting-point. 
Each  miracle  is  a  sign  of  what  He  is,  not  only  in  regard  of  the  power 
by  which  it  is  wrought,  but  also  by  its  own  nature  and  character, — 
in  other  words,  it  is  a  symbol  of  His  work.  The  words  which  John 
adds  once  for  all  are  to  be  understood  with  every  mention  of  a  '  sign,' 
for  in  every  miracle  Jesus  made  manifest  (removed  the  veil  from)  His 
glory,  revealed  Himself.  Two  other  passages  complete  the  view 
which  John  gives  us  of  his  meaning.  Of  the  '  signs '  he  says  him- 
self:  'These  (signs)  are  written  that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  His 
name,'  Of  the  glory  he  says  :  '  We  beheld  His  glory,  glory  as  of  an 
only  begotten  from  a  father.'  First,  then,  this  miracle  attested  the 
mission  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ ;  the  miracle  established,  as  for  Moses 
so  fur  Him,  the  divine  commission,  and  ratified  His  words.  Next,  it 
revealed  His  own  glory  as  Son  of  God,  manifesting  His  power,  in  a 
work  as  sudden  and  as  inexplicable  as  a  new  creation  ;  and  not  only 
His  power  but  His  grace,  as  He  sj^mpathizes  alike  with  the  joys  and 
with  the  difficulties  of  life.  Further,  the  miracle  brought  into  light 
what  He  is  in  His  work.  The  waterpots  filled  full  for  the  purifying 
of  the  Jews  stand  as  an  emblem  of  the  religion  of  the  day,  nay,  even 
of  the  ordinances  of  the  Jewish  religion  itself,  '  carnal  ordinances 
imposed  until  a  time  of  reformation.'  At  Christ's  word  (on  one  view 
of  the  miracle)  the  water  for  purifying  is  changed  into  wine  of  glad- 
ness :  this  would  point  to  Judaism  made  instinct  with  new  life.  On 
the  other  view,  nothing  is  withdrawn  from  the  use  to  which  Jewish 
ritual  applies  it,  but  the  element  which  could  only  minister  to  outward 
cleansing  is  transmuted  by  a  new  creative  word.  '  The  law  was  given 
through  Moses  :  grace  and  truth  came  throiigh  Jesus  Christ.'  The  ob- 
ject of  all  the  signs  (23:    31)  was   answered  here  in  the   disciples. 


46  JOHN  II.  [2 :  12. 

his  mother,  and  his  brethren,  and  his  disciples  :    and 
there  they  abode  not  many  days. 

They  had  believed  already  that  He  was  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  (1  :  41, 
49):  ihQy  noyf  belieoed  in  Him, — each  one  '  throws  himself  with  ab- 
solute trust  upon  a  living  Lord,'  recognizing  the  manifestation  of  His 
glory.  The  miracles  in  this  Gospel,  like  the  parables  in  the  other 
Gospels,  are  a  test  of  faith.  They  lead  onward  the  believer  to  a 
deeper  and  a  firmer  trust ;    they  repel  those  who  refuse  to  believe. 

The  Transition  to  the  Public  Ministry,  and  the  Cleansing  of  the  Temple. — 
Vers.  12-22. 

Contexts.  In  the  passage  before  us  we  have  the  first  section  of  the  third  great  di- 
vision of  our  Gospel.  Jesus  leaves  the  circle  of  His  disciples,  and  begins  His  public 
work.  This  is  done  at  Jerusalem,  after  a  few  daj's  spent  in  Capernaum.  In  the  me- 
tropolis of  Israel  He  appears  as  the  Son  in  His  Father's  house  ;  and  in  the  cleansing 
of  the  old  temple  and  the  promise  of  the  raising  up  of  a  new  one  He  illusirates  the 
nature  of  the  work  He  is  to  do.  The  first  symptoms  of  opposition  accordingly  appear 
in  this  passage.  Jesus  is  rejected  by  the  theocracy  of  Israel,  and  the  foundation  is 
laid  for  His  entering  upon  wider  fields  of  labor.  The  subordinate  parts  of  this  sec- 
tion are— (1)  ver.  12 ;  (2)  vera.  13-23. 

Yer.  12.  After  this  he  went  down  to  Capernaum,  Naz- 
areth, not  Cana,  would  appear  to  be  the  place  from  which  Jesus  '  went 
down'  (from  the  hill-country  of  Galilee, — comp.  chap.  4:  47,49,  51) 
to  Capernaum,  for  His  brethren,  who  are  not  said  to  have  been  with 
Him  in  Cana,  are  now  of  the  company.  All  that  can  be  said  with  cer- 
tainty as  to  the  position  of  Capernaum  is,  that  it  was  situated  on  the 
western  coast  of  the  Lake  of  Gennesaret,  not  far  from  the  northern 
end  of  the  lake  ;  whether  the  present  Tell  Hum  or  (less  probably) 
Khan  Minyeh  be  the  site,  we  cannot  here  inquire  (see  note  on  Matt. 
4  :  13).  We  have  here  the  earliest  appearance  of  this  busy  and  thriv- 
ing Galilean  town  in  the  history  of  our  Lord's  life.  The  visit  related 
in  Matt.  4  :  13  and  Luke  4:  31  belongs  to  a  later  period  than  this,  a 
period  subsequent  to  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist  (see  chap. 
3:  22).  Luke's  narrative,  however,  (chap.  4:  23),  contains  an  allu- 
sion to  earlier  miracles  in  Capernaum.  Whether  reference  is  made  to 
this  particular  visit  (which,  through  the  nearness  of  the  passover,  was 
of  short  duration)  or  not,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  two  Evan- 
gelists agree  in  recording  a  residence  of  Jesus  in  this  town  earlier 
than  that  brought  into  prominence  in  Matt.  4:  13.  In  the  Fourth 
Gospel  Capernaum  occupies  a  very  subordinate  place ;  the  centre  of 
the  Judean  ministry  Avas  Jerusalem. — He,  and  his  mother  and 
brethren,  and  his  disciples.  In  his  usual  manner  John  divides 
the  compafty  into  three  groups,  naming  separately  Jesus,  His  rela- 
tions by  natural  kindred,  His  disciples.  The  brethren  of  Jesus  were 
James,  Joses  (or  Joseph),  Simon,  and  Judas  (Matt.  13:  55;  Mark 
6:3).     In  what  sense  they  are  called  '  brethren  '  whether  as  the  sons 


2:  13,14.]  JOHN  11.  47 

13  And  the    passover  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand,  and 

14  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.      And  he  found  in  the 
temple  those  that  sold  oxen  and  sheep  and  doves, 

of  Joseph  and  Mary,  as  sons  of  Joseph  by  an  earlier  marriage,  or  as 
sons  of  Mary's  sister  (' brother '  taking  the  meaning  of  near  kins- 
man), lias  been  a  subject  of  controversy  from  the  third  century  to  the 
present  day.  It  is  impossible  to  discuss  the  question  within  our  limits, 
though  something  further  must  be  said  when  we  come  to  later  chap- 
ters (chs.7  and  19).  Here  we  can  only  express  a  very  decided  conviction 
that  the  last  mentioned  of  the  three  opinions  is  without  foundation, 
and  that  the  '  brethren '  were  sons  of  Joseph,  their  mother  being 
either  Mary  herself  or,  more  probably,  an  earlier  wife  of  Joseph 
(comp.  note  on  Matt.  13  :  58).  This  verse  alone  might  suggest  that 
the  brethren  were  not  disciples,  and  from  chap.  7 :  5  we  know  they 
were  not, 

Ver.  13.  And  the  passover  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand,  and 
Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  The  expression,  '  passover  of  the 
Jews,'  is  very  remarkable,  and  can  be  explained  only  by  the  usage 
already  noticed  in  ver.  6.  To  John's  mind  the  nation  cannot  but  pre- 
sent itself  habitually  as  in  opposition  to  his  Master.  As  yet,  indeed, 
Jesus  is  not  confronted  by  an  organized  band  of  adversaries  represent- 
ing the  ruling  body  of  the  nation  ;  but  we  are  on  the  verge  of  the  con- 
flict, and  the  conflict  itself  was  only  the  outcome  of  ungodliness  and 
"worldliness  existing  before  their  manifestation  in  the  persecution  of 
Jesus.  The  light  was  come,  but  it  was  shining  in  darkness  :  this 
darkness  rested  on  what  had  been  the  temple,  the  city,  the  festivals, 
of  the  Lord.  The  feast  now  at  hand  is  not  '  the  Lord's  passover' 
(Ex.  12:  11),  but  'the  passover  of  the  Jews.'  The  prevailing  spirit 
of  the  time  has  severed  the  feast  from  the  sacred  associations  wliich 
belonged  to  it,  so  that  Jesus  must  go  up  rather  as  Prophet  than  as 
worshipper, — not  to  sanction  by  His  presence,  but  powerfully  to  pro- 
test againsf  the  degenerate  worship  of  that  day.  The  word  of  proph- 
ecy must  be  fulfilled  :  '  And  the  Lord  whom  ye  seek  shall  suddenly 
come  to  His  temple  .  .  .  but  who  may  abide  the  day  of  His  com- 
ing?'  (Mai.  3:  1,  2). 

Ver.  14.  And  he  found  in  the  temple-courts  those  that 
sold  oxen  and  sheep  and  doves.  The  scene  of  this  traffic  was 
the  outer  court,  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  court  of  the  Gentiles,  but 
known  to  the  Jews  as  '  the  mountain  of  the  house.'  This  court 
(which  was  on  a  lower  level  than  the  inner  courts  and  the  house  or 
sanctuary  itself)  occupied  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  the  space  in- 
closed by  the  outer  walls.  Along  its  sides  ran  cloisters  or  colonnades, 
two  of  which,  '  Solomon's  porch  '  on  the  east,  and  the  '  Royal  porch  ' 
on  the  south,  were  especially  admired :  to  these  cloisters  many  of  the 
devout  resorted  for  worship  or  instruction,  and  here,  no  doubt,  our 
Lord  often  taught  (chap.  10  :  23).  In  strange  contrast,  however,  with 


48  JOHN  11.  [2:  15. 

15  and  the  changers  of  money  sitting :  and  he  made  a 
scourge  of  cords,  and  cast  all  out  of  the  temple,  both 
the  sheep  and  the  oxen ;     and  he   poured    out  the 

the  sacredness  of  the  place  was  what  He  now  '  found  in  the  temple- 
courts,'  At  all  times,  and  especially  at  the  passover,  the  temple  was 
frequented  by  numerous  worshipers,  who  required  animals  that  might 
be  offered  in  sacrifice.  The  law  prescribed  the  nature  of  each  sacri- 
fice, and  enjoined  that  all  animals  presented  to  the  Lord  should  be 
'  without  blemish'  (Lev.  22:  19,20), — a  requirement  which  the 'tradi- 
tion of  the  elders'  expanded  into  minute  detail.  Hence,  sacrifice  would 
have  been  well-nigh  impossible,  had  not  facilities  been  afforded  for  the 
purchase  of  animals  that  satisfied  all  the  conditions  imposed.  Tlie  neigh- 
boring quarter  of  the  city  naturally  became  a  bazaar  for  the  purpose  ; 
but  unhappily  the  priests,  yielding  to  temptations  of  gain,  had  suffered 
such  traffic  to  be  carried  on  within  the  precincts  of  the  temple  itself. 
At  what  period  this  abuse  took  its  rise  we  do  not  know.  Some  have 
supposed  that  the  last  words  of  Zechariah  (chap.  14  :  21)  refer  to  sim- 
ilar practices,  the  verse  being  i-endered  :  '  In  tliat  day  there  shall  be 
no  more  the  trafficker  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  of  hosts.'  The  book 
of  Nehemiah  shows  examples  of  the  spirit  of  disorder  and  irreverence 
from  which  such  usages  naturally  spring  ;  and  the  representations  of 
Malachi  make  it  easy  to  understand  that  the  priests  would  be  only  too 
readily  accessible  to  the  allurements  of  a  gainful  traffic.  In  the  court 
of  the  Gentiles,  then,  stood  those  who  offered  for  sale  oxen  and  sheep, 
— also  doves  (for  the  poor.  Lev.  14:  22,  and  for  women.  Lev.  12:  6). 
The  wording  of  this  verse  ('  those  that  sold,'  etc.)  shoAvs  that  the 
trade  was  now  an  established  custom.  The  discordance  between  a 
cattle-mart  and  a  place  for  sacred  worship  and  converse  need  not  be 
drawn  out  in  detail.  But  this  was  not  all. — And  the  changers  of 
money  sitting  : — at  their  tables  in  the  sacred  place.  The  annual 
tribute  which  every  man  of  Israel  was  bound  to  pay  to  the  temple 
treasury  could  be  paid  out  only  in  the  half-shekel  'of  the  sanctuary' 
(see  Matt.  17  :  24-26).  All  who  came  from  other  lands,  therefore,  or 
who  had  not  with  them  the  precise  coin,  must  resort  to  the  exchangers, 
who  (as  we  learn  from  the  Talmud)  were  permitted  to  do  their  busi- 
ness in  the  temple  during  the  three  weeks  preceding  the  passover. 
Their  profits  (at  a  rate  of  interest  amounting  to  ten  or  twelve  per 
cent.)  were  very  great. 

Ver.  15.  And  making  a  scourge  of  cords,  he  drove  them 
all  out  of  the  temple-courts,  and  the  sheep  and  the  oxen. 
The  scourge  was  made  for  the  expulsion  of  the  animals,  but  by  it 
Jesus  also  declared  His  purpose  to  the  traders  themselves.  The  words 
show  distinctly  that  it  is  with  the  men  that  He  is  dealing  ;  but  He 
drives  them  from  the  sacred  place  by  banishing  the  instruments  and 
means  of  their  unholy  trainc.  In  a  figurative  sense  IMessiah  was  said 
to  come  armed  with  a  scourge.  *  Rabbi  Eliezer  was  asked  by  his  dis- 
ciples: How  should  a  man  live  to  escape  the  scourge  of  the  Messiah  ? 


2:  16,17.]  JOHN  II.  49 

16  changers'  money.,  and  overthrew  their  tables ;  and  to 
them  that  sold  the  doves  he  said,  Take  these  things 
hence ;    make  not  my  Father's  house  a  house  of  mer- 

17  chandise.  His  disciples  remembered  that  it  was 
written,  The  zeal  of  thine  house*  shall  eat  me  up. 

*  For  "  The  zeal  of  thine  house  "  read  "  Zeal  for  thy  house" — Am,  Com. 

He  answered  :  Let  him  live  according  to  the  law  and  in  love  towards 
men." — And  poured  out  the  changers'  money,  and  overthrew 
the  tables — the  counters  on  which  the  bankers  placed  their  heaps  of 
change. 

Ver.  16.  And  said  unto  them  that  sold  the  doves,  Take 
these  things  hence  :  make  not  my  Father's  house  an  house 
of  merchandise.  We  must  not  suppose  that  the  sellers  of  doves 
were  more  leniently  dealt  with.  The  oxen  might  be  driven  away,  the 
tables  overturned,  but  the  cages  of  birds  must  be  carried  out  by  their 
owners  :  hence  it  is  to  these  alone  that  Jesus  directly  addresses  words 
which  were  really  spoken  to  all,  and  which  explained  His  action.  Any 
zealous  reformer,  who  understood  the  faith  of  Israel,  might  have  done 
as  much  :  indeed,  the  first  treatise  in  the  Talmud  contains  regulations 
for  the  due  reverence  of  the  temple  which  utterly  condemn  such  pro- 
fanations as  are  related  here.  But  though  the  action  of  Jesus  might 
imply  no  more.  His  words  declare  that  He  vindicates  the  honor  of 
His  Father's  house.  Thus  He  at  once  honors  His  Father  and  declares 
Himself.  He  offers  Himself  to  Israel  as  the  Son  of  God.  In  this  deed, 
as  in  all  His  acts  and  words  (comp.  MiUtt.  13:  11-15),  there  is  a 
mingling  of  revelation  and  reserve :  the  declaration  of  Sonship  is 
combined  with  an  act  which  no  true  Israelite  could  fail  to  approve. 
Those  who,  yielding  to  the  impulse  of  right,  and  listening  to  the  voice 
of  conscience,  accepted  the  act,  would  be  led  to  ponder  the  words  ; 
in  them  would  be  fulfilled  the  promise,  '  To  him  that  hath  shall  more 
be  given.'  Those  who  hardened  their  heart  against  the  act  lost  the 
revelation  which  was  given  with  it,  and  were  in  danger  of  losing  all. 
John  does  not  speak  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple  as  miraculous,  but 
the  Saviour's  words  themselves  mark  it  as  a  *  sign  :'  and  it  is  only  by 
thinking  of  a  divine  awe  attending  the  words  (comp.  chap.  18  :  6)  that 
we  can  explain  the  immediate  submission  of  the  traffickers.  The  fol- 
lowing verses  describe  the  twofold  effect  of  the  act  of  Jesus  on  the  dis- 
ciples and  on   '  the  Jews.' 

Ver.  17  His  disciples  remembered  that  it  was  written, 
Zeal  for  thy  house  shall  eat  me  up.  Clearly  (from  the  contrast 
with  ver.  22)  they  remembered  this  scripture  at  that  time.  The 
quotation  is  from  Ps.  69,  a  psalm  which  is  several  times  referred  to  in 
the  New  Testament.  See  Rom.  1-5  :  3  ;  11 :  9,  10  ;  Acts  1  :  20  (per- 
haps John  15:  25)  ;  and  comp.  Ps.  69  :  21  with  the  accounts  of  the 
crucifixion.  We  have  no  record  of  the  interpretation  of  this  psalm  by 
Jewish  writers  in  a  Messianic  sense,  but  New  Testament  usage  can 
4 


60  JOHN  11.  [2:  18,19. 

18  The   Jews   therefore   answered  and  said   unto   hira, 
What   sign  showest   thou  unto  us,  seeing  that  thou 

19  doest   these  things?    Jesus  answered   and  said   unto 
them,  Destroy  this   ^  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will 

1  Or,  sanctuary. 

leave  no  doubt  that  such  an  application  of  many  verses  is  both  allow- 
able and  necessary.  What  was  true  of  the  devout  and  afflicted  Israel- 
ite who  wrote  the  words  was  true  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah,  of  whom  all  such  faithful  servants  were  imperfect  types. 
The  exact  meaning  of  the  words  here  quoted  will  best  appear  if  we 
take  the  whole  verse :  '  Zeal  for  thy  house  consumed  me:  and  the 
reproaches  of  them  that  reproached  Thee  fell  on  me.'  The  par- 
allelism of  the  lines  shows  that  the  chief  antithesis  lies  in  the  pro- 
nouns. Dishonor  shown  to  God  has  been  felt  by  the  psalmist  as  a 
cruel  wrong  to  himself.  '  Zealous  indignation  for  T/ii/  house,  inspired 
by  the  sight  or  news  of  unworthy  treatment  of  l^/diie  house,  con- 
sumed me, — so  to  say,  destroyed  my  very  life.'  The  quotation  is 
not  exact ;  what  in  the  psalm  is  past  is  here  future :  '  shall 
eat  me  up.'  An  examination  of  other  passages  will  show  that,  where 
John  uses  the  words  '  it  is  written,'  he  does  not  necessarily  imply  that 
the  quotation  is  made  with  literal  exactness.  Had  we  the  past,  '  con- 
sumed,' we  might  be  led  to  think  of  the  inward  consuming  of  holy 
zeal  from  which  resulted  this  act  of  indignation  ;  the  future,  '  will  eat 
me  up,'  brings  us  nearer  to  what  we  have  seen  to  be  the  meaning  of 
the  passage  in  the  psalm.  His  zeal  for  His  Father's  house  will  devour 
His  very  life — will  bring  destruction  in  its  train. 

Ver.  18.  The  Je-ws  therefore  ans-wered.  The  effect  on  the 
disciples  has  been  related  ;  what  will  be  the  response  of  the  rulers  to 
the  self-revelation  of  Jesus?  The  word  'therefore,'  answers  to  the 
Evangelist's  knowledge  of  the  fact.  Their  position  of  inward  antag- 
onism is  presented  to  his  thought,  though  it  has  not  yet  found  expres- 
sion in  their  deeds.  And  said  unto  him,  "What  sign  showest 
thou  unto  us  because  thou  doest  these  things  ?— This  an- 
swer (replying  to  the  act  rather  than  the  words)  is  in  the  tone  of  in- 
dignation, not  of  sincere  inquiry  :  '  Because  Thou  doest  these  tilings 
Thou  art  bound  to  show  a  sign,  a  sign  that  shall  justify  such  actions.' 
The  effectual  cleansing  was  the  '  sign,'  but  as  such  they  would  not  re- 
ceive it.  Their  question  is  a  token  of  the  failure  (so  far  as  the  nation 
was  concerned)  of  the  manifestation  which  Jesus  had  given  of  Him- 
self as  Son  of  God.  Both  in  the  question  and  in  the  response  of  our 
Lord  we  have  a  clear  parallel  in  the  earlier  Gospels  :  see  Matt.  12  : 
38-40. 

Ver.  19.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Destroy 
this  temple.  The  most  important  point  for  the  understanding  of 
this  verse  is  the  distinction  between  the  two  words  which  the  English 
Bible  renders  *  temple.'     The  word  used  in  vers.  14  and  15  denotes 


2:  20.]  JOHN  II.  51 

20  raise  it  up.     The  Jews  therefore  said,  Forty  and  six 
years  was   this  Hemple  in  building,   and   wilt   thou 

1  Or,  sanctuary. 

generally  the  whole  area  within  the  walls,  and  here  especially  the  out- 
ermost  space  in  the  sacred  enclosure  ;  while  .the  latter  signifies  the 
holy  place,  and  the  holy  of  holies.  The  sanctity  of  the  temple-court 
has  been  vindicated  ;  the  true  temple,  the  sanctuary,  the  dwelling- 
place  of  Jehovah,  has  not  been  mentioned  in  the  nai-rative  until  now. 
But  even  this  vei-y  significant  change  of  expression  would  not  render 
the  meaning  plain,  for  the  words  were  intended  to  be  enigmatical — 
to  be  understood  after,  and  not  before,  the  event  which  fulfilled  them. 
If  we  would  understand  them,  we  must  take  them  in  connection  with 
ver.  21,  '  But  He  spake  of  the  temple  of  His  body.'  To  the  English 
reader  they  seem  merely  to  convey  a  warning  that,  if  the  Jews  go  on 
with  such  profanation  as  that  which  Jesus  had  checked,  they  will 
bring  the  temple  to  ruin.  But  it  is  of  the  sanetuary  that  He  speaks, 
not  of  the  temple-court  which  had  sustained  the  desecration.  When 
therefore  He  says,  '  Go  on  in  your  present  way,  and  by  so  doing  de- 
stroy this  temple,'  He  means  that  their  rejection  of  Himself  shall  cul- 
minate in  their  consigning  to  destruction  the  temple  of  His  body.  The 
essence  of  the  temple  is,  that  it  is  the  dwelling-place  of  God  :  His  body 
is  God's  temple,  for  in  Him  'dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godheid 
bodily.'  The  material  temple  had  been  for  ages  the  type  of  His  body, 
in  which  God  first  truly  manifested  Himself  to  man.  The  continuance 
of  the  temple  was  no  longer  needed  when  the  living  temple  was  reared  ; 
but  it  was  by  the  destruction  of  the  latter  that  the  destruction  of  the 
former  was  brought  about, — its  destruction,  that  is,  as  the  dwelling- 
place  of  God.  In  the  holiest  place,  behind  the  veil,  Jehovah  had 
dwelt:  when  the  Lord  Jesus  was  crucified,  the  veil  was  rent,  the  ho- 
ly of  holies  was  thrown  open,  and  by  being  thrown  open  was  shown 
to  be  God's  habitation  no  longer.  Our  Lord  therefore  might  well  use 
words  which  relate  at  once  to  His  body  and  to  the  temple,  such  being 
the  connection  between  tlie  two.  And  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it 
up. — His  crucifixion  involved  the  total  destruction  of  the  Jewish  tem- 
ple and  polity.  No  longer  will  there  be  a  special  place  in  which  God's 
glory  will  be  revealed,  to  which  God's  worshippers  will  come, — a 
place  in  which  are  national  distinctions,  a  court  of  the  Gentiles,  a 
court  of  Israel,  a  court  of  the  priests.  His  resurrection  will  estab- 
lish a  new  temple,  a  new  order  of  spiritual  worship.  He  Himself,  as 
raised  and  glorified  Messiah,  will  be  the  Corner-stone  of  a  spiritual 
temple,  holy  in  the  Lord.  This  is  one  of  the  many  passages  in  the 
Gcspel  which  show  to  us  how  perfectly  all  the  future  of  His  histor}'' 
was  anticipated  by  our  Lord  (see  chap.  3  :  14.  etc).  There  is  no  real 
difficulty  in  the  words,  '/  Avill  raise  it  up;'  chap.  10:  17,  18,  fur- 
nishes a  complete  explanation. 

Ver.  20.     The    Jev/s  therefore  said,  Forty  and  six   years 
\v^as  this  temple  in  building,  and   wilt  thou   raise   it  up  in 


52  JOHN  II.  [2 :  21,  22. 

21  raise    it    up  in  three    days  ?    but  he  spake  of    the 

22  temple  of  his  body.     When  therefore  he  was  raised 
from  the  dead,  his  disciples  remembered  that  he  spake 

1  Or,  sanctuary. 

three  days  ?  They  answer  only  by  another  question,  not  an  in- 
quiry, but  really  an  indignant  and  scornful  rejection  of  His  words. 
It  was  at  the  close  of  the  year  20  b.  c.  or  the  beginning  of  19  b.  c. 
that  Herod  the  Great  began  the  rebuilding  of  the  temple.  The  tem- 
ple itself  was  completed  in  eighteen  months  ;  the  extensive  buildings 
round  it  required  eight  years  more.  So  many  additions,  however, 
proved  necessary  before  the  work  could  be  regarded  as  finished,  that 
the  final  completion  is  assigned  by  Josephus  to  the  year  50  a.  d.,  sev- 
enty years  after  the  commencement  of  the  undertaking,  and  but  twen- 
ty years  before  Jerusalem  was  destroyed.  The  '  forty  and  six  years' 
bring  us  to  the  year  28  a.  d.  It  is  perhaps  strange  that  the  Jews 
should  associate  the  long  terms  of  years  with  the  rebuilding  of  the 
sanctuary  and  not  the  temple  as  a  whole  ;  it  is,  however,  very  likely 
that,  at  all  events,  the  ornamentation  of  this  building  might  still  be 
incomplete.  Moreover,  in  their  indignant  rejoinder  to  the  saying  of 
Jesus,  they  not  unnaturally  take  up  the  very  term  which  He  had  used, 
even  though  it  applied  in  strictness  only  to  the  most  sacred  portion  of 
the  structure. 

Ver.  21.  See  above  on  ver.  19. 

Ver.  22.  When  therefore  he  was  raised  from  the  dead,  hia 
disciples  remembered  that  he  said  this.  Again  (as  in  ver.  10) 
we  are  struck  by  the  suddenness  with  which  the  narrative  breaks  ofi^. 
It  has  been  related  mainly  to  bring  out  the  rejection  of  Jesus  by  the 
Jews;  the  Evangelist  pauses  upon  it  only  for  a  moment  to  speak  of 
the  eflFect  on  the  disciples,  as  after  the  former  miracle  he  records  that 
the  'disciples  believed  in'  Jesus  (ver.  11).  We  do  not  find  the  same 
statement  here,  but  are  told  (comp.  chap.  12:  16)  that  the  words 
which  baffled  the  Jews  were  mysterious  to  the  disciples  likewise. 
Whilst,  however,  the  Jews  rejected  the  '  hard  saying,'  the  disciples 
'  kept  all  these  things  and  pondered  them  in  their  '  hearts,'  not  under- 
standing them  until  the  prophecy  was  fulfilled.  This  record  of  words 
not  understood  at  the  time,  even  by  the  inner  circle  of  the  followers 
of  Jesus,  is  a  striking  indication  of  the  simple  truthfulness  of  the  nar- 
ration (oomp.  ver.  11). — And  they  believed  the  Scriptures  and 
the  word  which  Jesus  had  said. — The  recollction  of  the  words 
after  the  resurrection  led  the  disciples  (we  cannot  doubt  that  John  is 
speaking  chiefly  of  his  own  experience)  to  a  fuller  and  richer  faith  in 
'the  scripture'  and  'word'  of  Jesus.  The  'word'  must  be  that  of  ver. 
19  ;  but  it  is  not  so  easy  to  explain  '  scripture.'  It  cannot  mean  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  whole,  for  in  this  sense  John  always  uses  the 
plural,  '  the  Scriptures.'  It  would  be  easier  to  suppose  that  the  Evan- 
gelist has  in  mind  some  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  predictive  of 
the  resurrection  (e.  g.,  from  Ps.  16  ;    Isa,  63 ;  Hos.  6),  or  the  rebuild- 


2 :  22.]  JOHN  II.  53 

this  ;  and  they  believed   the  scripture,  and  the  word 
which  Jesus  had  said. 

ing  of  the  temple  (^^Zech.  6  :  12-15).  If  however,  we  include  several 
passages,  the  difficulty  in  the  use  of  the  singular  remains  as  before ; 
and  if  we  seek  for  a  single  prediction,  we  cannot  meet  with  any  one 
that  a^rrees  so  closely  with  our  Lord's  saying  as  to  be  thus  definitely 
pointed  out  as  '  the  scripture.'  We  seem  bound  to  refer  the  word  to 
the  only  '  scripture  that  (ver.  17)  has  been  quoted  in  the  context,  Ps. 
69  :  9.  This  verse  speaking  of  the  consuming  and  of  its  cause, 
formed  the  groundwork  of  the  first  part  of  our  Lord's  saying  ('  De- 
stroy this  temple').  Hence  this  passage  of  the  psalm  and  '  the  word 
which  Jesus  had  said '  form  one  whole,  and  as  such  are  mentioned  here. 
The  disciples,  guided  to  deeper  faith  by  that  which  was  at  the  time 
wholly  mysterious  (and  which  was  a  •  stone  of  stumbling '  to  those 
who  believed  not),  recognizing  the  fulfillment  of  Old  Testament  proph- 
ecy and  of  the  prediction  of  Jesus  Himself  in  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  their  Lord.  Thus  in  the  first  scene  of  His  public  ministry, 
we  have  Jesus  before  us  in  the  light  in  which  the  whole  Gospel  is  to 
present  Him,  at  once  the  crucified  and  the  ri-en  Lord.  The  whole 
narrative  has  been  subjected  to  keen  scrutiny  both  by  friends  and 
foes,  but  its  importance  has  hardly  yet  been  properly  acknowledged. 
A  few  words  must  still  be  said  as  to  its  relation  to  the  other  Gospels, 
and  as  to  its  place  in  this.  Each  of  the  earlier  Gospels  records  a  cleans- 
ing of  the  temple,  accomplished,  however,  not  at  the  outset  but  at  the 
close  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry,  on  the  Monday  (probably)  pre- 
ceding the  crucifixion.  To  some  it  has  seemed  altogether  improbable 
that  there  should  have  been  two  acts  of  precisely  similar  character  at 
the  extreme  points  of  the  oflBcial  life  of  our  Lord.  But  is  the  char- 
acter of  the  two  the  same  ?  We  would  not  lay  too  much  stress  on 
some  of  the  differences  of  detail,  for  apparent  divergences  sometimes 
present  themselves  in  connection  with  narratives  which  no  one  would 
be  inclined  to  explain  as  relating  to  different  events.  There  are,  how- 
ever, not  a  few  touches  in  the  account  before  us  which  show  the  hand 
of  an  eye-witness  ;  such  as  the  making  of  the  scourge  of  cords,  the 
scattering  of  the  money  of  exchange,  the  words  addressed  to  the  sell- 
ers of  doves  alone,  the  form  of  the  rebuke,  the  conversation  with 
the  Jews,  the  incidental  notice  of  the  forty-six  years  (a  statement 
which  only  elaborate  calculation  shows  to  be  in  harmony  with  inde- 
pendent statements  of  another  Evangelist).  Finally,  there  is  the  re- 
markable perversion  before  Caiaphas  of  the  words  regarding  the  re- 
building of  the  temple,  on  which  nothing  contained  in  the  earlier 
Gospels  throws  any  light,  and  which  (especially  as  given  in  Mark  14 : 
58)  bears  all  the  marks  of  having  been  exaggerated  in  the  popular 
mind  through  lapse  of  time.  Such  considerations  as  these  seem  to 
show  that,  if  the  cleansing  can  have  occurred  once  only,  its  place  in 
the  history  is  that  assigned  by  John.  But  is  it  really  at  all  improba- 
ble that  two  cleansings  should  have  taken  place,  separated  by  such  an 


54  JOHN  II.  [2 :  23. 

Chapter  2:  23—3:  21. 

The  Conversation  with  Nicodemus. 
23      Now  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  passover, 
during  the  feast,  many  believed  on  his  name,  behold- 

interval  of  time  as  the  Gospel  narrative  presupposes  ?  No  one  will 
think  that  the  action  of  our  Lord,  as  here  related,  would  put  an  end 
to  the  traffic,  when  this  very  narrative  brings  before  us  an  official  chal- 
lenge of  His  authority  so  to  act.  At  the  last  Passover  Jesus  M'ould 
find  the  temple-court  as  much  the  scene  of  worldly  trading  as  it  was 
at  the  first.  Did  He  then,  it  will  be  asked,  condone  the  evil  when  in 
intervening  j'-ears  He  went  up  to  the  same  feast?  This  question  must 
be  met  by  another  :  Have  we  reason  to  believe  that  Jesus  attended  any 
other  Passover  than  these  two  ?  The  feast  of  chap.  5  :  1  was  in  all 
probability  not  a  Passover,  and  at  the  Passover  mentioned  in  6  :  4  He 
certainly  was  not  present.  If  then  he  attended  two  Passovers  only,  is 
it  at  all  improbable  that  on  the  second  occasion,  as  on  the  first.  He 
would  vindicate  the  purity  and  sanctity  of  the  temple?  The  purpose, 
too,  of  the  two  cleansings  is  different.  At  the  close  of  His  ministry 
He  is  hailed  as  King  of  Israel,  and  He  indignantly  expels  from  God's 
house  those  who  practically  denied  to  Gentiles  any  share  in  that  place 
of  prayer.  Now  He  acts  as  the  Son  of  God,  offering  Himself  in  this 
character  to  rulers  and  to  people,  that  they  may  acknowledge  His  Son- 
ship  and  obey  His  word.  '  He  came  unto  His  own  home,'  His  home  as 
Son,  •  and  they  that  were  His  own  received  Him  not.'  This  is  the 
turning-point  of  His  ministry :  henceforth  He  is  the  rejected  of  the 
Jews.  This  is  the  significance  of  the  narrative  before  us.  The  cleans- 
ing and  the  mysterious  words  spoken  by  Jesus  (ver.  19)  are  alike 
'  signs.'  The  first  was  a  sign  of  His  Sonship,  a  sign  which  they  re- 
fused to  accept.  That  refused,  He  gives  the  second  ;  just  as,  when  the 
Pharisees  asked  of  Him  a  sign  from  heaven.  He  refused  lo  give  any 
save  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonah.  If  they  will  not  listen  to  the 
former,  the  latter  alone  remains.  He  WDuld  have  renewed  the  life  of 
the  temple,  but  they  would  not  have  it  so.  Let  them,  then,  go  on  in 
their  ways,  and  destroy  the  temple ;  let  them  go  on  in  their 
rejection  of  Him,  and  destroy  His  life.  The  result  will  be  the 
raising  of  the  spiritual  temple  which  shall  be  none  of  theirs— a  temple 
in  which  God  Himself  shall  dwell,  manifested  to  all  men  in  the  Son. 
The  Conversation  with  Nicodemus. — Chap.  II.  23 — III.  21. 
CoNTEXTis. — It  is  of  much  importance  to  keep  the  closing  verses  of  chap.  2  in  close 
connection  with  the  opening  verses  of  chap.  .3  (s"e  the  commentary  on  3 :  1).  Reject- 
ed by  the  theocracy  of  Israel,  Jesus  turns  to  individuals,  but  these  are  not  confined  to 
Israel.  The  woman  of  Samaria  and  the  king's  officer  of  Galilee  are  beyond  the  the- 
ocratic pale.  Nicodemus,  however,  who  is  first  introduced  to  us,  does  belong  to  the 
chosen  people;  and  the  conversation  of  Jesus  with  him,  as  it  leads  liim  from  an  im- 
perfect to  a  perfect  faith,  illustrates  the  power  which  Jesus,  though  rejected  by  Israel 
and  doomed  to  die,  shall  exercise  over  the  hearts  of  men.  The  subordinate  parts  of 
this  section  are— (1)  2 :  23-35 ;  (2)  3  :  1-15 ;  (3)  3  :  16-21. 


2:  24,  25.]  JOHN  II.  55 

24  iug  his  signs  which  he  did.     But  Jesus  did  not  trust 

25  himself  unto  them,  for  that  he  knew  all  men,  and 
because  he  needed  not  that  any  one  should  bear  witness 
concernino;  ^man ;  for  he  himself  knew  what  was  in  man. 

1  Or,  a  man  ;  for ....  the  man. 
[One  of  the  richest  sectioQs  of  the  X.  T.  :  the  infinite  love  of  God  to  the  whole 
world  (10),  the  mission  of  Christ,  the  kingdom  of  God,  regeneration  by  his  Spirit,  eter-' 
nal  life :  these  grand  truths  are  set  forth  in  this  interview  with  a  timid,  j-et  earnest  en- 
quirer from  the  highest  ranks  of  Jewish  society.  The  first  sign  of  Christ  in  Galilee 
was  a  miracle  of  transformation  ;  his  first  public  act  in  Jerusalem  an  act  of  reforma- 
tion, his  first  discourse  a  discourse  on  regeneration.  This  is  the  central  idea  and  one  of 
ihe  three  fundamental  ideas  of  Christianity  :  incarnation— atonement— regeneration. 
The  new  birth  from  heaven  by  a  creative  act  of  the  Holy  Sjnrit  is,  like  the  natural 
birth,  a  mystery  as  to  its  origin  and  mode,  but  a  mystery  manifest  in  its  effects  to  all 
who  have  spiritual  eyes  to  see,  and  meets  us  in  every  true  Christian  who  is  as  certain 
of  his  liigher  life  as  he  is  of  his  natural  life.  The  results  of  this  conversation  with  Mc- 
odemus  appear  in  7  :  50  and  19  :  39  and  are  repeated  ever  since  in  the  experience  of 
all  attentive  readers  and  hearers. — P.  S.J 

Ver.  23.  Now  when  he  was  in  Jerusalem  at  the  pass- 
over,  at  the  feast,  many  believed  in  his  name,  beholding 
his  signs  which  he  did.  In  this  verse  we  pass  from  the  public 
presentation  of  Jesus  to  the  people  and  'the  Jews'  in  the  House  of 
His  Father  to  His  more  private  ministry  in  Jerusalem :  rejected  as  the 
Son  of  God,  He  continues  His  work  as  a  Prophet,  doing  many  *  signs,' 
and  by  these  leading  many  to  faith  in  His  mission.  The  time  spoken 
of  is  still  the  season  of  the  Passover.  The  remarkable  repetition,  '  at 
the  Passover,  at  the  feast,'  may  probably  be  intended  to  direct  our 
thoughts  especially  to  the  very  night  of  the  paschal  supper.  If  so,  the 
purification  of  the  temple  may  have  fallen  at  the  very  time  when  every 
Israelite  sought  to  purify  himself  and  his  house  for  the  great  festival 
that  was  now  approaching.  The  words  would  also  point  to  our  Lord's  ob- 
serving the  feast  Himself.  It  is  noticeable  that  we  do  not  here  read 
*  the  Passover  of  the  Jews  : '  the  desecration  of  the  festival  has  been 
condemned  in  one  of  its  manifestations,  but  the  festival  itself  is  honored. 

Vers.  24,  25.  But  Jesus  did  not  trust  himself  unto  them 
on  account  of  his  discerning  all  men,  and  because  he 
needed  not  that  any  should  bear  witness  concerning  a 
man  ;  for  he  himself  discerned  what  was  in  the  man.  The 
effect  produced  upon  Jesus  Himself  by  this  imperfection  of  faith  is 
described  in  very  remarkable  language.  Many  'believed  in  His 
name,'  and  so  took  the  first  step  towards  that  surrender  of  the  heart 
to  Him  which  in  ver.  11  we  read  of  as  made  by  His  disciples.  Had 
they  thus  fully  trusted  themselves  to  Him,  then  would  He  have  trust- 
ed Himself  to  them.  This  is  one  of  the  illustrations  of  the  teaching, 
80  characteristic  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  with  regard  to  the  union  and 
communion  of  Jesus  with  His  people  ;  if  they  abide  in  Him,  He  abides 
in  them.  That  these  believers  have  not  reached  such  maturity  of  faith 
Jesus  Himself  discerns.   No  witness  by  another  is  needed  by  Him,  for 


66  JOHN  III.  [3:  1. 

1      Now  there  was  a   man  of  the  Pharisees,  named 

the  thoughts  of  every  man  with  whom  He  speaks  are  'naked  and 
opened'  unto  Him.  The  words  of  John  do  not  in  their  literal  sense 
go  beyond  this  ;  but,  in  declaring  that  Jesus  read  the  heart  of  all  who 
came  to  Him,  they  imply  that  other  truth  with  which  the  rendering  in 
our  Bibles  has  made  us  familiar :   '  He  knew  Avhat  was  in  man.' 

Ver.  1.  And  there  -was  a  man  of  the  Pharisees,  named 
Nicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews,  That  this  verse  does  not  begin 
a  new  section  is  clearly  shown  by  the  first  word  '  And,'  which  links  it 
with  the  last  chapter;  another  indication  of  the  same  kind  is  seen 
when  the  true  reading  is  restored  in  ver.  2  ('  to  Him'  for  *  to  Jesus'  ). 
A  closer  examination  will  show  that  the  connection  thus  suggested  is 
really  very  close  and  important.  In  chap.  2 :  24,  25,  a  very  marked 
emphasis  is  laid  on  '  man ;'  the  same  word  and  thought  are  taken  up 
in  this  verse.  Ver.  2  of  this  chapter  brings  before  us  a  belief  agree- 
ing in  nature  and  ground  with  that  spoken  of  in  chap.  2  :  23,  24. 
The  last  thought  of  chap.  2  is  powerfully  illustrated  by  the  answers 
which  Jesus  returns  to  the  thoughts  of  Nicodemus.  Clearly,  then, 
John  means  us  to  understand  that  out  of  the  many  Avho  '  believed  in 
the  name'  of  Jesus  was  one  deserving  of  special  attention,  not  merely 
as  representing  a  higher  class  and  special  culture,  but  chiefly  because, 
brought  by  the  signs  to  a  degree  of  fsaith,  he  was  desirous  of  knowing 
more;  and  our  Lord's  dealings  with  Nicodemus  show  how  He  sought 
to  lead  all  who  were  so  prepared  to  a  deeper  knowledge  and  higher 
faith.  The  name  Nicodemus  is  found  in  the  Talmud,  as  a  Hebrew 
surname  borne  by  a  Jew,  a  disciple  of  Jesus,  whose  true  name  was 
Bonai.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  persons  are  identical,  and 
on  the  whole  it  is  more  probable  that  they  are  not.  It  is  most  natu- 
ral to  regard  the  name  Nicodemus  as  Greek,  not  Hebrew ;  compare 
'Philip'  (chap.  1:  43).  Nicodemus  is  described  as  a  Pharisee  (see 
notes  on  chaps.  1 :  24 ;  7 :  32),  and  as  'a  ruler  of  the  Jews,' — i.  e..,  a 
member  of  the  Sanhclrin  (comp.  chap.  7:  50),  the  great  council  of 
seventy-one  which  held  supreme  power  over  the  whole  nation.  In 
other  passages  John  uses  *  ruler  '  in  this  sense  (see  7  :  26,  48  ;  12  :  42) ; 
here  only  does  he  join  with  it  the  words  '  of  the  Jews.'  The  added 
words  (see  chap.  1:  19)  show  that  Nicodemus  stood  connected  with 
that  body  which  was  ever  present  to  John's  thought  as  the  assemblage 
of  those  who  represented  the  self-seeking  and  formalism  which  Jesus 
came  to  subvert.  The  elements  of  hostility  already  existed,  though 
the  open  conflict  had  not  yet  begun  (see  chap.  2 :  18).  It  is  not  easy 
always  to  define  the  relation  between  '  the  Pharisees'  and  '  the  Jews,' 
as  the  two  terms  are  used  by  John  ;  for  under  the  latter  designation 
the  leaders  of  the  Pharisees  would  certainly  be  included.  The  former 
perhaps  usually  brings  into  prominence  teaching  and  principles  ;  the 
latter  points  rather  to  external  action.  The  Pharisees  took  alarm  at 
the  new  doctrine,  the  Jews  resented  the  new  authority.  Nicodemus  is 
not  free  from  the  externalism  and  prejudices  of  his  class,  but  his  can- 


3:  2.]  JOHN  III.  57 

2  Xicodemus,  a  ruler  of  the  Jews  :  the  same  came  unto 
him  by  night,  and  said  to  him,  Rabbi,  we  know  that 
thou  art  a  teacher  come  from  God  :  for  no  man  can 
do  these  signs  that  thou  doest,  except  God  be  with 

dour  and  his  faith  stand  out  in  wonderful  contrast  to  the  general  spirit 
evinced  by  the  Pharisees  and  the  Jews. 

Ver,  2.  The  same  came  to  him  by  night.  Chap.  19 :  38,  89, 
seems  clearly  to  show  that  the  r:otive  of  Nicodemus  in  thus  coming  by 
night  was  the  same  as  the  cause  of  Joseph's  secret  discipleship — the 
'fear  of  the  Jews.'  That  he  himself  was  one  of  'the  Jews'  only 
makes  this  explanation  more  probable.  We  cannot  doubt  that  he 
came  alone ;  whether  Jesus  also  was  alone,  or  whether  John  or  other 
disciples  were  present  at  the  interview,  we  cannot  tell. — And  said 
unto  him,  Rabbi,  "we  kno-w  that  thou  art  come  from  God  a 
teacher.  Every  word  here  is  of  importance.  On  Rabbi  see  the  note, 
chap.  1 :  38.  We  may  be  sure  that  a  member  of  the  sect  that  carefully 
scrutinized  the  Baptist's  credentials  (chap.  1 :  19-24)  would  not  lightly 
address  Jesus  by  this  title  of  honor,  or  acknowledge  Him  as  a  Teacher. 
But  the  words  'Thou  art  come  from  God'  will  appear  even  more  sig- 
nificant, if  wfi  keep  in  mind  that  the  most  familiar  designation  of  the 
Messiah  was  '  tl^  coming  One,'  '  He  that  should  come.'  The  appear- 
ing of  the  Baptist  quickened  in  the  minds  of  '  all  men'  (Luke  3 :  15) 
the  recollection  of  God's  great  promise  ;  and  the  signs  lately  wrought 
by  Jesus  in  Jerusalem  may  well  have  excited  in  the  mind  of  the 
Pharisee  hopes  which  find  a  hesitating  expression  in  his  words.  No 
ordinary  prophet  would  have  been  thus  acknowledged  as  one  '  come 
from  God.'  At  the  vei-y  least,  the  confession  assigns  to  Jesus  a  su- 
preme authority  as  Teacher.  The  confession  of  Nicodemus  was  made 
in  the  name  of  others  besides  himself.  '  We  know;' — others  amongst 
the  Pharisees,  perhaps  already  others  amongst  the  rulers  (chap.  12 : 
42),  had  reached  the  same  point.  Xo  doubt  the  number  was  but 
small,  too  small  to  make  confession  easy,  or  to  banish  the  very  natural 
fear  of  the  Jews  which  brought  Nicodemus  to  Jesus  by  night. — For 
no  one  can  do  these  signs  that  thou  doest  except  God  be 
■with  him.  Nicodemus  acknowledges  the  works  to  be  '  signs  '  (not  so 
the  .Jews,  chap.  2:  18),  and  he  shows  that  in  him  the  signs  had  pre- 
cisely answered  the  designed  end.  The  faith  indeed  which  rested  on 
these  alone  was  imperfect,  but  it  was  faith ;  more  could  be  gained ; 
the  faith  could  be  educated,  raised  higher,  and  made  more  complete. 
How  truly  this  faith  has  been  educated  will  be  shown  when  (chap.  19: 
39)  it  shall  come  forth  in  honor  of  that  crucified  Redeemer  who  is  here 
to  be  proclaimed  (ver.  14).  Such  education,  however,  can  be  efi"ected 
only  by  the  word  of  Jesus,  leading  to  fellowship  with  Himself.  For 
this  word  Nicodemus  now  comes.  In  reading  the  following  verses  we 
must  bear  in  mind  that,  as  Jesus  would  train  and  strengthen  the  faith 
of  Nicodemus,  it  is  the  weak  side  of  this  faith  that  is  kept  in  view ; 


68  JOHN  III.  [3:  3. 

3  him.      Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except  a  man  be  born  ^anew, 

1  Or,  from  above. 

but  the  Saviour's  acceptance  of  the  faith  as  real  is  plainly  to  be  seen 
in  the  openness  and  unreservedness  of  the  teaching  He  vouchsafes. 
Many  have  pointed  out  the  contrast  between  this  discourse  and  those 
related  in  the  other  Gospels  ;  but  had  there  been  no  difference  between " 
discourses  delivered  to  the  half-instructed  excitable  multitudes  of  Gal- 
ilee and  those  intended  for  a  '  teacher  of  Israel,'  the  apparent  agree- 
ment would  have  been  a  discord  which  no  argument  could  explain 
away  (see  Introduction), 

Ver.  3.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  thee.  Except  any  one  have  been  born  anevr, 
he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  Jesus  answers  his  thoughts 
rather  than  his  words,  but  the  connection  between  the  address  and  the 
answer  is  not  hard  to  find.  John  the  Baptist  had  familiarized  all  with  the 
thought  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand,  that  the  reign  of  the 
Messiah,  so  long  expected,  would  soon  begin.  Whatever  meaning  may 
be  assigned  to  the  words  of  ver.  2,  we  may  certainly  say  that  every 
thoughtful  Jew  who  believed  what  Nicodemus  believed  was  '  waiting 
for  the  kingdom  of  God.'  But  the  Pharisee's  conception  of  the  Mes- 
sianic promise  was  false.  In  great  measure,  at  least,  his  '  kingdom  of 
God'  was  outward  and  carnal,  not  inward  and  spiritual, — a  privilege 
of  birth,  belonging  of  riglit  to  Israel.  This  false  conception  Jesus 
would  at  once  correct,  and  the  gravity  of  the  error  is  reflected  in  the 
solemnity  of  the  language,  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.' — '  Any 
one.'  Tliis  more  literal  rendering  is  necessary  here  because  of  the 
next  verse.  Our  Lord  says  simply  any  one.  Nicodemus  brings  in  the 
word  'man'  to  give  more  expressiveness  to  his  reply.  '  Have  been 
born  anew.'  It  has  been,  and  still  is,  a  much  controverted  question 
whether  the  Greek  word  here  used  should  be  rendered  again,  or  aneio, 
or  from  above.  'Again'  is  certainly  inadequate  ;  for,  though  the  word 
may  denote  beginning  over  again,  commencing  the  action  afresh,  it  cannot 
express  mere  repetition.  Much  may  be  said  in  favor  of  the  tlaird 
rendering  '  from  above.'  This  is  the  undoubted  meaning  of  the  same 
word  as  used  below  (ver.  31) ;  and  a  similar  idea  is  expressed  in  the 
passages  of  the  Gospel  (chap.  1 :  13)  and  First  Epistle  of  John  (chap. 
2:  29,  5:  1,  etc.)  which  speak  of  those  who  are  begotten  of  God.  It 
may  also  be  urged  that,  as  Christ  is  '  He  that  cometh  from  above '  (ver. 
31),  those  who  through  faith  are  one  with  Christ  must  derive  their 
being  from  the  same  source,  and  may  well  be  spoken  of  as  '  born  from 
above.'  Notwithstanding  these  arguments,  it  is  probable  that  anew  is 
the  true  rendering.  Had  the  other  thought  been  intended,  we  might 
surely  have  expected  'of  God'  instead  of  'from  above.'  The  corre- 
spondence between  the  two  members  of  the  sentence  would  then  have 
been  complete ;  only  those  who  have  been  born  of  God  can  see  the 


3 :  4,  5.]  JOHN  III.  69 

4  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  Kicodemus  saith 
unto  him,  How  can  a  man  be  born  when  he  is  old  ? 
can  lie  enter  a  second  time  into  his  mother's  womb, 

5  and  be  born  ?     Jesus  answered,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 

kingdom  of  God.  Further,  born  (or  begotten)  of  God  is  a  very  easy  and 
natural  expression,  but  this  can  hardly  be  said  of  born  (or  be(jotten) 
from  above :  '  coming  from  above '  is  perfectly  clear ;  '  born  from 
above'  is  not  so.  The  chief  argument,  however,  is  afforded  by  the 
next  verse,  which  clearly  shows  that  Nicodemus  understood  a  second 
birth  to  be  intended.  But  the  words  '  except  any  one  have  been  born 
from  above'  would  not  necessarily  imply  a  second  birth.  The  Jews 
maintained  that  they  were  born  of  God  (see  chap.  8:  41),  and  would 
have  had  no  difficulty  whatever  in  believing  that  those  only  who  re- 
ceived their  being  from  above  could  inherit  the  blessings  of  Messiah's 
kingdom.  Our  Lord's  words,  then,  teach  the  fundamental  truth,  that 
not  natural  birth,  descent  from  the  stock  of  Israel,  but  a  second  birth, 
the  being  begotten  anew,  a  complete  spiritual  change  (see  ver.  5),  ad- 
mits into  the  kingdom  of  God.  On  the  general  expectation  of  a  king 
and  a  kingdom,  see  chap.  1 :  49.  It  is  remarkable  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  expressly  mentioned  by  .John  in  this  chapter  only  (compare, 
how^ever,  chap.  18:  36). — 'Cannot'  is  by  no  means  the  same  as  'shall 
not.'  It  expresses  an  impossibility  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  To 
a  state  of  outward  earthly  privilege,  rights  of  natural  birth  might 
give  admittance.  In  declaring  that  without  a  complete  inward  change 
none  can  possibly  see  (have  a  true  perception  of )  '  the  kingdom  of 
God,'  Jesus  declares  the  spiritual  character  of  His  kingdom.  In  it 
none  but  the  spiritual  can  have  any  part. 

Ver.  4.  Nicodemus  saith  unto  him,  How  can  a  man  be 
born  -when  he  is  old  ?  can  he  enter  a  second  time  into  his 
mother's  womb,  and  be  born  ?  These  are  the  words  of  a  man 
amazed  beyond  measure.  Jesus  has  read  his  thoughts,  and  the  answer 
to  his  unspoken  question  has  come  with  the  suddenness  and  surprise 
of  a  thunderbolt.  The  solemn  emphasis  laid  on  the  words  *born 
anew'  forbids  his  thinking  of  a  mere  figure  of  speech,  and  apparently 
banishes  from  his  mind  the  Old  Testament  expressions  which  approach 
the  same  truth  (see  ver.  5).  The  privilege  which  he  attached  to  natu- 
ral birth  within  the  bounds  of  Israel  is  torn  away  by -a  word  ;  the  '  any 
one'  of  our  Lord's  answer  makes  all  men  equal ;  and  the  prize  which 
seemed  almost  within  his  grasp  is  given  to  every  one  who  has  been 
born  anew.  In  his  bewilderment  he  sees  no  meaning  in  the  words  of 
Jesus,  except  they  be  understood  physically  of  a  second  natural  birth ; 
and  the  evident  impossibility  of  this  he  expresses  in  the  very  strongest 
terms. 

Ver.  5.  Jesus  answered.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee, 
Except  any  one  have  been  born  of  water  and  spirit,  he 
cannot  enter  into   the  kingdom  of  God.     The  answer  is  a 


60  JOHN  III.  [3 :  5. 

unto  thee,  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 

stronger  affirmation  of  the  same  truth,  with  some  changes  of  expres- 
sion which  made  the  words  no  easier  of  acceptance,  save  as  the  new 
terms  might  awaken  echoes  of  Old  Testament  language,  and  lead  the 
hearer  from  the  external  to  an  inward  and  spiritual  interpretation. 
The  first  words  have  given  rise  to  warm  and  continued  controversy. 
Many  have  held  that  the  bii"th  '  of  water  and  spirit'  can  only  refer  to 
Christian  baptism ;  others  have  denied  that  Christian  baptism  is 
alluded  to  at  all.  The  subject  is  very  important  and  very  difficult. 
Our  only  safety  lies  in  making  the  Evangelist  his  own  interpreter. 
We  shall  repeatedly  find,  when  a  difficulty  occurs,  that  some  word  of 
his  own  in  the  context  or  in  some  parallel  passage  brings  us  light.  (1) 
First,  then,  as  to  the  very  peculiar  expression  'of  water  and  spirit.' 
We  cannot  doubt  that  this  is  the  true  rendering;  no  direct  reference 
is  made  as  yet  to  the  personal  Holy  Spirit  The  words  '  water  and 
spirit'  are  most  closely  joined,  and  placed  under  the  government  of 
the  same  preposition.  A  little  earlier  in  the  Gospel  (chap.  1 :  33)  we 
find  the  same  words — not,  indeed,  joined  togetlier  as  here,  but  yet 
placed  in  exact  parallelism,  each  word,  too,  receiving  emphasis  from 
the  context.  Three  times  between  chap.  1 :  19  and  chap.  1 :  33  John 
speaks  of  his  baptism  with  water ;  twice  there  is  a  reference  to  the 
Spirit  (1 :  32,  33) ;  and  in  ver.  33  John's  baptizing  with  water  and 
our  Lord's  baptizing  with  'holy  spirit'  (see  the  note)  stand  explicitly 
contrasted.  It  is  very  possible  that  this  testimony  was  well  known  to 
others  besides  John's  disciples,  to  all  indeed  in  Judgea  who  were  roused 
to  inquiry  respecting  the  Baptist  and  his  relation  to  Jesus.  (2)  It  is 
possible  that  the  Jews  of  that  age  may  have  been  familiar  with  the 
figure  of  a  new  birth  in  connection  with  baptism.  It  is  confessedly 
difficult  accurately  to  ascertain  Jewish  usages  and  modes  of  thought 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord.  The  Talmud  indeed  contains  copious  stores 
of  information,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish  between  what  belongs 
to  an  earlier  and  what  to  a  later  age.  We  know  that  converts  to  the 
Jewish  religion  were  admitted  by  baptism  to  fellowship  with  the  sacred 
people.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  law  would  suggest  such  a  washing 
when  the  uncleanness  of  heathenism  was  put  off,  and  hence  no  rite 
could  be  more  natural.  Yet  we  have  no  certain  knowledge  that  this 
was  practiced  so  early  as  the  time  of  our  Lord.  There  is  no  doubt  that, 
at  a  later  date,  the  proselyte  thus  washed  or  baptized  was  spoken  of  as 
born  again.  Here  again,  therefore,  we  have  some  confirmation  of  the 
view  that  in  the  words  before  us  there  is  in  some  sort  a  reference  to 
baptism, — at  all  events,  to  the  baptism  of  John.  (3)  But  what  was 
John's  baptism?  We  see  from  chap.  1 :  25  how  peculiar  his  action  ap- 
peared to  the  rulers  of  the  people.  Even  if  proselytes  were  in  that  age 
baptized,  a  baptism  that  invited  all,  publican  and  Pharisee  alike,  would 
but  seem  the  more  strange.  John's  action  was  new  and  startling;  and 
from  chap.  1 :  21-25  it  appears  that  the  leaders  of  Jewish  thought  be- 


3 :  6.]  JOHN  III.  61 

6  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that 

held  in  it  an  immediate  reference  to  the  time  of  Messiah,  It  seems  very- 
probable  that  John's  baptism  was  directly  symbolic,  a  translation  into 
visible  symbol  of  such  promises  as  Ezek.  36 :  25,  which  looked  forward 
to  the  new  spiritual  order  of  which  he  was  the  herald.  To  the  sprink- 
ling with  clean  water,  the  cleansing  from  all  filthiness,  of  which  Ezek- 
iel  speaks,  answers  closely  John's  '  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins'  (compare  also  Ezek,  36:  31),  To  the  promise  which 
follows,  'A  new  spirit  will  t  put  within  you.  ...  I  will  put  my  spirit 
within  you,'  answers  just  as  closely  John's  testimony  to  Jesus,  '  He  it 
is  that  baptizeth  with  holy  spirit,'  (4)  The  two  contrasted  elements  in 
the  baptisms  of  chap,  1 :  33  are  (a)  the  covering  and  removal  of  past  sin ; 
and  [b)  the  inbreathing  of  a  new  life.  In  that  verse  'holy  spirit'  is 
the  gift  and  not  the  Giver.  The  Giver  is  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  the  gift, 
that  which  is  the  essential  element  in  the  new  baptism,  is  the  bestowal 
of  'holy  spirit,'  the  seed  and  the  principle  of  a  holy  spiritual  life.  (5) 
These  two  elements  were  conjoined  in  the  Christian  baptism  instituted 
afterwards:  the  cleansing  of  forgiveness  through  Christ's  death  and 
the  holiness  of  the  new  life  in  Christ  are  alike  symbolized  in  it.  Here, 
therefore,  our  Lord  says  that  no  man  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  unless  he  have  been  born  anew,  the  elements  of  the  new  birth 
being  the  removal  by  cleansing  of  the  old  sinful  life,  and  the  imparta- 
tion  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  a  new  holy  principle  of  life. — If  this  view 
of  the  words  is  correct,  there  is  error  in  both  extremes  of  which  men- 
tion has  been  made.  There  is  no  direct  reference  here  to  Christian  bap- 
tism; but  the  reference  to  the  truths  which  that  baptism  expresses  is 
distinct  and  clear. 

Ver.  6.  That  which  hath  been  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh ; 
and  that  -which  hath  been  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.  In 
the  last  verse  was  implied  the  law  that  like  is  produced  from  like, 
since  the  pure  and  spiritual  members  of  God's  kingdom  must  be  born 
of  water  and  spirit.  Here  this  law  is  expressly  stated.  Flesh  pro- 
duces flesh.  Spirit  produces  spirit.  Thus  the  necessity  of  a  new  birth 
is  enforced,  and  the  'cannot'  of  ver.  3  explained.  It  is  not  easy  to 
say  whether  '  flesh,'  as  here  used,  definitely  indicates  the  sinful  prin- 
ciples of  human  nature,  or  only  that  which  is  outward,  material,  not 
spiritual  but  merely  natural.  The  latter  seems  more  likely,  both  from 
the  context  (where  the  contrast  is  between  the  natural  and  the  spirit- 
ual birth)  and  from  John's  usage  elsewhere.  Though  the  word  occurs 
as  many  as  thirteen  times  in  this  Gospel  (chap.  1 :  13  ;  14,  6:  51,  52, 
etc.,  8  :  15  ;  17:  2),  in  no  passage  does  it  express  the  thought  of  sinful- 
ness, as  it  does  in  Paul's  Epistles  and  in  1  John  2 :  16.  Another  diffi- 
culty meets  us  in  the  second  clause.  Are  we  to  read  'born  of  the 
Spirit'  or  'of  the  spirit?'  Is  the  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit  Him- 
self, who  imparts  the  principle  of  the  new  life,  or  to  the  principle 
which  He  imparts, — the  principle  just  spoken  of  in  ver.  5,  '  of  water 
and  spirit  ? '     It  is  hard  to  say,,  and  the  diff"erence  in  meaning  is  ex- 


62  JOHN  III.  [3:  7,  8. 

7  which  is  born  of  the  Sj^irit  is  spirit.     Marvel  not 

8  that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  be  born  ^anew.     ^The 
wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the 

1  Or,  from  above.  20r,  The  Spirit  breatheth. 

tremely  small ;  but  when  we  consider  the  analogy  of  the  two  clauses, 
the  latter  seems  more  likely.  There  is  no  reference  here  to  '  water  ; ' 
but,  as  we  have  seen,  the  water  has  reference  to  the  past  alone, — the 
state  which  gives  jjlace  to  the  new  life.  To  speak  of  this  would  be 
beside  the  point  of  the  verse  now  before  us,  which  teaches  that  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  kingdom  of  God  can  only  come  from  the  new 
spiritual  principle. 

Ver.  7.  Marvel  not  that  I  said  unto  thee,  Ye  must  be  born 
ane"w.  Nicodemus  had  no  doubt  shown  by  look  or  exclamation  his 
astonishment  at  hearing  such  words,  containing  so  strange  a  view  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  conditions  on  which  it  could  be  entered. 
The  use  of  '  marvel '  in  other  passages  would  seem  to  show  that  in  this 
Gospel  the  word  indicates  much  more  than  amazement.  It  is  certain- 
ly not  the  astonishment  of  admiration,  but  incredulous  and  sometimes 
angry  surprise.  Our  Lord's  teaching  had  set  at  nought  the  accepted 
teaching  of  Israel,  thoughts  and  hopes  to  which  Nicodemus  had  long 
and  firmly  clung,  and  his  heart  rebels.  Our  Lord,  according  to  His  wont, 
does  but  the  more  emphatically  affirm  the  truth  at  which  Nicodemus 
stumbled.  '  Ye  must  be  born  again : '  the  necessity  is  absolute.  Before, 
He  had  spoken  of  'any  one,'  leaving  the  application  to  His  hearer;  now, 
as  Nicodemus  had  said  '  We  know,'  Jesus  says  '  Ye  must,' — even  ye 
who  possess  the  treasures  of  Israel's  learning,  and  whom  the  signs  are 
guiding  to  the  King  of  Israel,  '  ye  must  be  born  again : '  *  Marvel  not 
at  this.' 

Ver.  8.  The  words  of  this  verse  point  out  to  Nicodemus  why  he 
must  not  thus  "marvel'  at  the  new  teaching, — must  not  cast  it  away 
with  incredulous  surprise.  Nature  itself  may  teach  him.  In  nature 
there  is  an  agent  whose  working  is  experienced  and  acknowledged  by 
all,  while  at  the  same  time  it  is  full  of  mystery  ;  yet  the  mystery 
makes  no  man  doubt  the  reality  of  the  working. — The  wind  breath- 
eth where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  voice  thereof,  but 
knowest  not  whence  it  cometh,  and  whither  it  goeth.  From 
the  beginning  the  wind  seems  to  have  been  the  divinely-intended  wit- 
ness and  emblem  in  the  natural  world  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Ever  pre- 
sent it  bore  a  constant  witness.  A  commentator  (Tholuck)  has  conjec- 
tured that,  whilst  .Jesus  spoke,  there  was  heard  the  sound  of  the  wind 
as  it  swept  through  the  narrow  street  of  the  city,  thus  furnishing  an 
occasion  for  the  comparison  here.  It  may  well  have  been  so ;  every 
reader  of  the  Gospels  may  see  how  willingly  our  Lord  drew  lessons 
from  natural  obiects  around  Him.  Such  a  conjecture  might  help  to 
explain  the  abruptness  with  which  the  meaning  of  the  word  is 
changed,  the  very  same  word  which  in  vers.  5  and  6  was  rendered 


3:  9.]  JOHN  III.  63 

voice  thereof,  but  knowest  not  whence  it  coraeth  and 

whither  it  goeth :  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the 

9  Spirit.      Nicodemus   answered   and   said   unto   him, 

spirit  being  now  used  in  the  sense  of  wind.  Nothing  but  the  abrupt- 
ness of  this  transition  needs  any  exphination.  The  appointed  emblem 
teaches  the  lesson  for  which  it  was  appointed.  The  choice  of  terms 
{breathpth,  listcth,  voice)  shows  that  the  wind  is  personified.  It  is  per- 
iiaps  of  the  gentle  breeze  rather  than  of  the  violent  blast  that  the 
words  speak  (for  the  \;OT(i pneuma  is  used  with  much  more  latitude  in 
the  Greek  Bible  than  in  classical  Greek) ;  in  the  breath  of  wind  there 
is  even  more  mystery  than  in  the  blast.  Thou  hearest  its  voice,  it  is 
present  though  invisible ;  thou  feelest  its  power,  for  thou  art  in  its 
course ;  but  where  the  course  begins,  what  produces  the  breath, — 
whither  the  course  is  tending,  what  is  the  object  of  the  breath, — thou 
knowest  not.  Nicodemus,  unable  to  question  this,  would  remember 
Old  Testament  words  which  spoke  of  man's  not  knowing  'the  way  of 
the  wind'  as  illustrating  man's  ignorance  of  the  Creators  works. 
(Eccles.  11 :  5). — So  is  every  one  that  hath  been  born  of  the 
Spirit.  As  in  the  natural,  so  it  is  in  the  spiritual  world.  The  wind 
breatheth  where  it  listeth  ;  the  Spirit  breatheth  where  He  will.  Thou 
hearest  the  sound  of  the  wind,  but  canst  not  fix  the  limits  of  its 
course,  experiencing  only  that  thou  thyself  art  in  that  course :  every 
one  that  hath  been  born  of  the  Spirit  knows  that  His  influence  is  real, 
experiencing  that  influence  in  himself,  but  can  trace  His  Avorking  no 
farther, — knows  not  the  beginning  or  the  end  of  His  course.  Our 
Lord  does  not  speak  of  the  birth  itself,  but  of  the  resulting  state.  The 
birth  itself  belongs  to  a  region  beyond  the  outward  and  the  sensible, 
just  as  none  can  tell  whence  the  breath  of  wind  has  come.  Many  take 
the  first  part  of  the  verse  as  having  reference  to  the  Spirit,  not  the 
wind:  'The  Spirit  breatheth  where  He  will,  and  thou  hearest  His 
voice,  but  knowest  not  whence  He  cometh  and  whither  He  goeth  ;  so 
is  every  one  that  hath  been  born  of  the  Spirit.'  The  chief  arguments 
in  favor  of  this  translation  are  the  fi  llowing : — (1)  It  does  not  involve 
a  sudden  transition  from  one  meaning  to  another  of  the  same  Greek 
word.  (2)  On  the  ordinary  view  there  is  some  confusion  in  the  com- 
parison :  the  words  are  not,  '  The  wind  breatheth  where  ...  so  is  the 
Spirit,-'  but,  'The  wind  breatheth  where  .  .  .  so  is  every  one  that  hath 
been  born  of  the  Spirit.'  These  two  arguments  have  substantially  been 
dealt  with  above.  The  language  is  condensed,  it  is  true,  and  the  words 
corresponding  to  the  first  clause  are  not  directly  expressed,  but  have 
to  be  supplied  in  thought.  The  chief  comparison,  however,  is  between 
the  'thou'  of  the  first  clause  and  the  'every  one'  of  the  second,  as  we 
have  already  seen.  On  the  other  hand,  the  diflficulties  presented  by 
the  new  translation  are  serious,  but  we  cannot  here  follow  them  in  de- 
tail. 

Ver.  9.     Nicodemus  ans-wered    and   said  unto  him,  Ho^v 
can  these  things  come  to  pass  ?     The  tone  of  this  answer  is  very 


64  JOHN  III.  [3:  10. 

10  How  can  these  things  be  ?     Jesus  answered  and  said 
unto  him,  Art  thou  the  teacher  of  Israel,  and  under- 

diflFerent  from  that  of  verse  4.  Here,  as  there,  the  question  is.  How 
can  .  .  ?  But  there  the  added  words  show  that  the  meaning  is,  '  It  is 
impossible'  (comp.  Luke  1:  18);  whereas  in  this  verse  the  chief 
stress  lies  on  the  first  word  '  How  '  (comp.  Luke  1  :  34).  The  offended 
astonishment  of  Nicodemus  (ver.  7)  has  yielded  to  the  words  of  Jesus. 
He  now  understands  that  Jesus  really  means  that  there  is  such  a  thing 
as  a  new  spiritual  birth,  in  contrast  with  that  natural  birth  which  had 
ever  seemed  to  him  the  only  necessary  condition  of  entrance  into  the 
kingdom  of  Messiah.  Still,  as  ver.  12  shows,  the  victory  over  unbe- 
lief is  not  yet  complete. 

Ver.  10.  Jesus  ansvrered  and  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  the 
teacher  of  Israel ;  and  perceivest  not  these  things  ?  The 
question  which  expressed  the  bewilderment  of  Nicodemus  is  an- 
swered by  another  question.  He  has  assumed  the  office  of  teacher, 
teacher  of  God's  people  Israel,  and  yet  he  does  not  recognize  these 
truths.  '  Israel '  is  a  word  used  only  four  times  in  this  Gospel,  and 
never  without  special  meaning.  We  have  seen  its  significance  in  1 :  31 
and  49  ;  and  chap.  12 :  13  is  similar  The  only  remaining  passage  is 
that  before  us.  No  word  so  clearly  brings  into  view  the  nation  of 
God's  special  choice.  The  name  carries  us  back  from  a  time  of  degen- 
eracy and  decadence  to  past  days  of  hope  and  promise.  It  was  to 
Israel  that  God  showed  His  statutes  and  His  judgments  (Ps.  147:  19), 
and  this  thought  is  very  prominent  here.  Of  Israel  thus  possessed  of 
the  very  truths  to  which  Jesus  had  made  reference  (see  above,  on  ver. 
5)  Nicodemus  is  •  the  teacher.'  It  is  not  simply  '  a  teacher,'  though 
it  is  not  very  easy  to  say  what  the  presence  of  the  article  denotes.  It 
is  possible  that  Nicodemus  occupied  a  superior  position,  or  was  held 
in  especial  honor  amongst  the  doctors  of  the  law  ;  or  the  words  may 
merely  imply  that  he  magnified  his  office  and  was  proud  to  be  teacher 
of  God's  people.  Surely  from  him  might  have  been  expected  such 
knowledge  of  the  Scriptures  and  insight  into  their  meaning  that  the 
truth  of  the  words  just  spoken  by  Jesus  would  at  once  be  recognised. 
For  our  Lord  does  not  say  '  and  knowest  not ;'  Nicodemus  is  not  blamed 
for  any  want  of  previous  knowledge  of  these  things,  but  because  he 
does  not  perceive  the  truth  of  the  teaching  when  presented  to  him, — 
and  presented,  moreover,  by  One  whose  right  to  teach  with  authority 
he  had  himself  confessed.  It  will  be  observed  that  Jesus  does  not 
answer  the  '  How  '  of  the  preceding  question ;  that  had  been  an- 
swered by  anticipation.  In  ver.  8  Jesus  had  declared  that  the  man- 
ner must  be  a  mystery  to  man,  whereas  the  fact  was  beyond  all  doubt. 
The  fact  was  known  to  every  one  that  had  been  born  of  the  Spirit, 
but  to  such  only.  Hence  in  the  following  verse  we  have  a  renewed 
and  more  emphatic  affirmation  of  the  truth  and  certainty  of  what  has 
been  said.  If  Nicodemus  would  really  know  the  fact,  it  must  be  by 
the  knowledge  of  experience, — He  appears  no   further  in  this  narra- 


3:  11,  12.]  JOHN  III.  65 

11  standest  not  these  things  ?  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
thee,  Vie  speak  that  we  do  know,  and  bear  witness  of 
that  we  have  seen ;  and  ye  receive  not  our  witness. 

12  If  I  told  you  earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how 

tive.     The  last  words  have  reduced  him  to  silence, — thoughtful  silence, 
we  cannot  doubt, — but  have  not  brought  him  to  complete  belief. 

Ver.  11.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee.  These  woi-ds  form 
the  solemn  introduction  to  a  new  division,  a  higher  stage,  of  the  dis- 
course. The  connecting  link  between  vers.  10  and  11  is  reproof. 
The  last  verse  laid  stress  on  the  knowledge  which  should  have  pre- 
pcared  the  teacher  of  Israel  for  the  reception  of  the  word  of  Jesus  ;  in 
this  the  emphasis  lies  on  the  dignity  of  the  Teacher  Avhose  word  he 
had  been  so  slow  to  receive.  We  speak  that  "which  "we 
know,  and  bear  witness  of  that  which  we  have  seen.  The 
sudden  transition  to  the  plural  '  we  know  '  is  remarkable.  We  cannot 
suppose  that  our  Lord  here  joins  with  Himself  the  prophets  of  the  Old 
Covenant,  or  John  the  Baptist,  or  that  He  is  speaking  of  the  testimony 
of  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  key  to  the  plural  is  found  in 
ver.  8.  Every  one  who  dwells  in  the  spiritual  world  of  which  Jesus 
has  been  speaking  is  a  witness  to  its  reality  and  its  wonders.  Here 
then  Jesus  associates  with  Himself  in  this  emphatic  testimony  all  who 
have  been  born  of  the  Spirit.  The  change  of  expression  is  peculiarly 
appropriate,  since  He  is  about  lo  pass  away  from  the  direct  address  to 
Nicodemus  himself,  and  to  speak  through  him  to  the  class  to  which  he 
belonged.  Nicodemus  had  at  first  said  '  we  know  '  (ver.  2),  as  rep- 
resentative of  others  like-minded  with  himself,  who  by  the  signs  had 
been  led  to  faith  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  but  were  ignoi-ant  of  His  spir- 
itual work.  Jesus  now  contrasts  with  these  another  class,  consisting 
of  all  who  from  their  own  experience  could  join  Rim  in  His  testimony 
to  the  reality  of  the  spiritual  kingdom.  The  words  of  Jesus  in  chap. 
9 :  4  are  equally  remarkable  in  their  association  of  His  people  with 
Himself. — The  tAvo  parallel  members  of  this  verse  bring  the  truth  ex- 
pressed into  bold  relief.  The  words  closely  correspond  [knoicing  to 
speaking,  seeing  to  bearing  witness),  while  there  is  at  the  same  time  an 
advance  in  the  thought,  since  bearing  witness  rises  above  speaking,  and 
we  have  seen  is  more  expressive  than  we  know.  In  ver.  8,  where  the 
wind  was  taken  as  the  emblem  of  the  Spirit,  the  sense  which  bore 
witness  was  that  of  hearing.  This  verse  speaks  of  something  more 
convincing  still,  the  sense  of  sight.  And  ye  receive  not  our 
witness.  To  such  sayings  of  his  Master  we  may  trace  the  mourn- 
ful reflections  which  are  again  and  again  made  by  the  Evangelist  (see 
1:  11,3:  32,  12:  37).  Though  the  reference  is  to  a  class  (' ye  re- 
ceive '),  yet  the  words  seem  to  imply  that  some  unbelief  still  lingered 
in  the  heart  of  Xicodemus  himself. 

Yer.  12.     If  I  told   you  the  earthly  things,  and  ye  believe 
not,    how^    shall    ye    believe   if    I   tell  you  the   heavenly 
5 


66  JOHN  III.  [3:  12. 

things  ?  Here  our  Lord  returns  to  the  singular,  '  I  told  ;'  for  He  is 
not  now  speaking  of  the  witness  of  experience,  but  of  instruction 
which  He  Himself  had  personally  given.  It  seems  hardly  possible, 
however,  that  our  Lord  simply  refers  to  words  just  spoken.  In  say- 
ing 'If  I  told  you  the  earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,'  He  plainly 
refers  to  unbelief  after  instruction, — unbelief  which  instruction  failed 
to  remove.  But  if  Nicodemus  came  alone  (and  there  is  no  doubt  that 
he  did),  he  alone  had  received  this  last  instruction.  Others  might  be 
described  as  unbelievers,  but  not  as  remaining  in  unbelief  after  having 
heard  the  teaching  concerning  the  new  birth.  We  are  compelled, 
therefore,  to  suppose  that  our  Lord  spoke  generally  of  previous  dis- 
courses to  the  Jews,  and  not  specifically  of  these  His  latest  words. 
But  what  are  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  things  ?  Many  answers 
have  been  given  which  are  little  more  than  arbitrary  conjectures. 
Again  the  Evangelist  must  be  his  own  interpreter.  As  in  the  next 
verse  '  heaven  '  is  not  used  figuratively,  it  cannot  be  maintained  that 
'heavenly'  is  figurative  here.  The  words  'earthly'  and  'heavenly' 
must  have  their  simple  meaning,  '  what  is  upon  earth,'  '  what  is  in 
heaven.'  The  things  that  are  in  heaven  can  only  be  made  known  by 
Him  who  has  been  in  heaven ;  this  is  suggested  by  the  connection  be- 
tween this  verse  and  the  next.  When  we  come  to  the  last  section  of 
the  chapter,  we  shall  find  that  it  contains  (in  some  degree)  a  comment 
upon  these  verses.  Now  there  (in  ver.  82)  we  read  of  Him  '  that 
Cometh  out  of  heaven,  who  '  bears  witness  of  what  He  has  seen  and 
heard,' — who  being  sent  from  God  '  speaketh  the  words  of  God  '  (ver. 
34:).  But  tbis  same  comment  takes  note  of  the  converse  also.  Con- 
trasted with  Him  who  comes  from  heaven  is  '  he  that  is  out  of  the 
earth'  and  'speaketh  out  of  the  earth'  (ver.  31).  Combining  these 
explanatory  words,  we  may  surely  say  that  '  the  heavenly  things '  are 
those  truths  which  he  who  cometh  from  heaven,  and  He  alone,  can 
reveal,  which  are  the  words  of  God  revealing  His  counsels  by  the  Di- 
vine Son  now  come.  The  things  on  earth,  in  like  manner,  are  the 
truths  whose  hoine  is  earth,  so  to  speak,  which  were  known  before 
God  revealed  Himself  by  Him  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father 
(chap.  1  :  18).  They  are  'earthlj'','  not  as  belonging  to  the  world  of 
sin  or  the  world  of  sense,  but  as  being  things  which  the  prophet  or 
teacher  who  has  never  ascended  into  heaven,  but  whose  origin  and 
home  are  the  earth,  can  reach,  though  not  necessarily  by  his  own  un- 
aided powei's.  In  His  former  discourses  to  the  Jews,  Jesus  would 
seem  not  to  have  gone  beyond  the  circle  of  truth  already  revealed. 
Even  in  His  words  to  Nicodemus  He  mainly  dwells  on  that  which  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  had  taught ;  and  He  reproves  the 
teacher  of  Israel  who  did  not  at  once  recognize  His  words,  thus 
founded  on  the  Old  Testament,  as  truth.  The  kingdom  of  God,  the 
necessity  of  repentance  and  faith,  the  new  heart,  the  holy  life,  the 
need  at  once  of  cleansing  and  of  quickening — these  and  other  truths, 
once  indeed  inhabitants  of  heaven,  had  long  been  naturalized  on 
earth.     Having  been  revealed,  they  belong  to  men,  whereas  the  secret 


3 :  13.]  JOHN  III.  67 

13  shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  heavenly  things  ?  And 
no  man  hath  ascended  into  heaven,  but  he  that  de- 
things  belong  unto  the  Lord  (Deut,  29:  29).  Those  of  whom  our 
Lord  spoke  had  yielded  a  partial  belief,  but  the  'believing'  of  which 
He  here  speaks  is  a  perfect  faith.  Nicodemus  was  a  believer,  and  yet 
not  a  believer.  If  some  of  the  truths  hitherto  declared  had  been  so 
imperfectly  received,  though  those  who  were  mighty  in  the  Scriptures 
ought  to  have  recognized  them  as  already  taught,  almost  as  part  of 
the  law  that  was  given  through  Moses  (chap.  1  :  17),  how  would  it  be 
when  He  spoke  of  the  things  hitherto  secret,  coming  directly  out  of 
the  heaven  which  He  opens  (comp.  chap.  1  :  51),  and  for  the  first 
time  revealed  in  Him, — part  of  the  '  truth  '  that  'came  through  .lesus 
Christ?'  (chap,  1 :  17). — It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  the  truth  of  ver. 
5  would  seem  to  be  placed  by  Jesus  rather  amongst  the  '  earthly  '  than 
amongst  the  '  heavenly '  things.  Of  some  of  the  heavenly  things  He 
proceeds  to  speak  (vers.  14,  15). 

Ver.  13.  And  no  one  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven,  but 
he  that  came  dow^n  out  of  heaven,  the  Son  of  man.  The  con- 
nection is  this  :  '  How  will  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  the  heavenly  things  ? 
And  it  is  from  me  alone  that  ye  can  learn  them.  No  one  can  tell  the 
heavenly  things  unless  he  has  been  in  heaven,  and  no  one  has  been  in 
heaven  and  come  down  to  earth  save  myself.'  Repeatedly  does  our 
Lord  in  this  Gospel  speak  of  His  coming  down  out  of  heaven  (6  :  33, 
38,  etc. ),  using  the  very  word  that  we  meet  with  here  ;  and  hence  it  is 
impossible  to  give  the  phrase  a  merely  figurative  sense.  He  came  forth 
from  the  Father,  and  came  into  the  world  (16 :  28)  that  He  might 
declare  the  Father  (chap.  1 :  18)  and  speak  unto  the  world  what  He 
had  heard  from  Him  (chap.  8:  26).  But  this  requires  that 
we  take  the  other  verb  'hath  ascended  up'  in  its  literal  sense, 
and  then  the  words  seem  to  imply  that  Jesus  had  already 
ascended  into  heaven.  '  Hath  ascended  up '  cannot  refer  to  His 
future  ascension  ;  and  there  is  no  foundation  for  the  view  held  by 
some,  that  within  the  limits  of  His  ministry  on  earth  He  was  ever  lit- 
erally taken  up  into  heaven.  What,  then,  is  the  meaning?  There  are 
several  passages  in  which  the  words  '  save  '  or  '  except '  present  the 
same  difficulty.  One  of  the  most  familiar  is  Luke  4  :  27,  where  it 
seems  at  first  strange  to  read,  '  Many  lepers  were  in  Israel  in  the  time 
of  Elisha  the  prophet,  and  none  of  them  was  cleansed  saving  Naamau 
the  Syrian,' — no  leper  of  Israel  cleansed  except  a  leper  who  was  not 
of  Israel !  The  mind  is  so  fixed  on  the  lepers  and  their  cleansing,  that 
the  other  words  '  of  them '  are  not  carried  on  in  thought  to  the  last 
clause  :  *  none  of  them  was  cleansed.' — indeed,  no  leper  was  cleansed 
save  '  Naaman  the  Syrian.'  So  also  in  the  preceding  verse  (Luke 
6 :  26).  In  other  passages  (such  as  Gal.  2 :  16 ;  Rev.  21 :  27)  the 
same  peculiarity  exists,  but  it  is  not  apparent  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion. The  vei'se  before  us  is  exactly  similar.  The  special  thought  is 
not  the  having  gone  up  into  heaven,  but  the  having  been  in  heaven.  This 
"Was  the  qualification  for  revealing  the  truths  which  are  here  spoken  of 


68  JOHN  III.  [3 :  14,  15. 

scended  out  of  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man,  Svhich 

14  is  in  heaven.     And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted 

15  up  :  that  whosoever  ^believeth  may  in  him  have  eter- 
nal life. 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  omit  which  is  in  heaven.  2  Qr,  believeth  in  him  way  have. 

as  heavenly  things.  But  none  (none,  that  is,  of  the  sons  of  men  ;  for 
this  is  a  general  maxim,  the  exception  is  not  brought  in  till  after- 
wards) could  be  in  heaven  without  ascending  from  earth  to  heaven. 
No  one  has  gone  up  into  heaven,  and  by  thus  being  in  heaven  obtained 
the  knowledge  of  heavenly  things  ;  and,  indeed,  no  one  has  been  in 
heaven  save  He  that  came  down  out  of  heaven,  the  Son  of  man.  Ob- 
serve how  insensibly  our  Lord  has  passed  into  the  revelation  of  the 
heavenly  things  themselves.  He  could  not  speak  of  His  power  to  re- 
veal without  speaking  of  that  which  is  first  and  chief  of  all  the  heav- 
enly things,  viz.  that  He  Himself  came  down  out  of  heaven  to  be  the 
Son  of  man  (on  the  name  '  Son  of  man  '  see  chap.  1 :  51).  The  ref- 
erence to  our  Lord's  humility  is  here  strikingly  in  place.  He  came 
down  from  heaven  and  became  the  Son  of  man  to  reveal  these  heav- 
enly truths  and  (vers.  14,  15)  to  give  the  heavenly  blessings  unto  man. 
The  weight  of  evidence  compels  us  to  believe  that  the  concluding 
words  of  this  verse,  Avhich  is  in  heaven,  as  it  stands  in  the  Authorized 
Version,  were  not  written  by  John.  We  can  only  suppose  that  they 
were  a  very  early  comment  on,  or  addition  to,  the  text,  first  written 
in  the  margin,  then  by  mistake  joined  to  the  text.  Were  they  genu- 
ine, they  would  probably  refer  to  the  abiding  presence  of  the  Son 
with  the  Father ;  but  in  such  a  sense  it  is  very  improbable  that  '  Son 
of  man '  would  have  been  the  name  chosen.  At  all  events,  we  have 
no  other  example  of  the  same  kind. 

Vers.  14,  15.  And  as  Moses  lifted  on  high  the  serpent  in 
the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  on 
high,  that  every  one  that  believeth  may  in  him  have 
eternal  life.  These  verses  continue  the  revelation  of  the  heavenly 
things.  The  first  truth  is,  that  He  who  was  in  heaven  came  down  to 
earth  to  be  the  Son  of  man.  The  next  is,  that  the  Son  of  man  must 
be  exalted,  but  in  no  such  manner  as  the  eager  hopes  of  Nicodemus 
imagined.  The  secret  counsel  of  heaven  was,  that  He  who  was  with 
God  should  as  Son  of  man  be  lifted  on  high,  as  the  serpent  was  lifted 
on  high  by  Moses  in  the  wilderness.  Thus,  indeed,  it  '  must  be,  that 
He  may  become  the  Giver  of  eternal  life. — The  word  rendered  'lifted 
on  high '  occurs  fifteen  times  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
sometimes  in  such  proverbial  sayings  as  Matt.  23  :  12,  sometimes  in 
reference  to  the  exaltation  of  our  Lord  (Acts  2:  33,  5 :  31).  In  this 
Gospel  we  find  it  in  three  verses  besides  the  present.  The  general 
usage  of  the  word  in  the  New  Testament  and  the  Old  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  it  cannot  here  signify  merely  raising  or  lifting  up.  And  yet 


3:  15.]  JOHN  III.  69 

John's  own  explanation  forbids  us  to  exclude  this  thought.  All  the 
passages  in  this  Gospel  which  connect  the  word  with  the  Son  of  man 
must  clearly  be  taken  together  ;  and  chap.  12  :  33  (see  note  there)  de- 
clares that  the  word  contains  a  reference  to  the  mode  of  the  Saviour" s 
death — the  elevation  on  the  cross.  Nicodemus  looked  for  the  exalta- 
tion of  the  King  in  the  coming  kingdom  of  God.  Exalted  He  shall 
be,  not  like  the  monarch  sitting  on  a  throne,  high  and  lifted  up,  amid 
pomp  and  splendor,  but  receiving  His  true  power  and  glory  at  the 
time  Avhen  He  hangs  upon  a  tree  an  object  of  shame.  The  brazen 
serpent,  made  in  the  likeness  of  the  destroyer,  placed  on  a  standard 
and  held  up  to  the  gaze  of  all,  might  seem  titted  only  to  call  forth  ex- 
ecration from  those  who  were  reminded  of  their  peril,  scorn  and  con- 
tempt from  those  who  saw  but  a  powerless  symbol  ;  but  the  dying  Is- 
raelite looked  thereon  and  lived.  The  looking  was  a  type  of  faith — 
nay, — it  Avas  itself  an  act  of  fiiith  in  the  promise  of  God.  The  serpent 
was  raised  on  high  that  all  might  look  on  it ;  the  exaltation  of  the  Son 
of  man,  which  begins  with  the  shame  of  the  cross,  has  for  its  object 
the  giving  of  life  to  all  (compare  chap.  12  :  32,  and  also  Heb.  2  :  9). 
— '  That  every  one  that  believeth.'  At  first  our  Lord  closely  follows 
the  words  spoken  in  ver.  12,  As  there  we  read,  'Ye  believe  not,'  so 
here,  '  He  that  believeth  : '  as  yet  no  qualifying  word  is  added  to 
deepen  the  significance  of  the  '  belief.'  What  is  before  us  is  the  gen- 
eral thought  of  receiving  the  word  of  Jesus.  In  that  all  is  in  truth 
included  ;  for  he  that  truly  receives  His  word  finds  that  its  first  and 
chief  requirement  is  faith  in  .Jesus  Himself.  So  here,  the  trust  is  first 
general,  but  the  thought  of  fellowship  and  union,  so  characteristic  of 
this  Gospel,  comes  in  immediately,  '  that  every  one  that  believeth  may 
in  Him  have  eternal  life,'  These  verses  which  reveal  the  heavenly 
truths  contain  the  very  first  mention  of  '  eternal  life,'  the  blessing  of 
which  John,  echoing  his  Master's  words,  is  ever  speaking.  'Eternal 
life '  is  a  present  possession  for  the  believer  (comp.  ver.  36) ;  its  essence 
is  union  with  God  in  Christ.  See  chap.  17  :  3  ;  1  John  1 :  2,  5  :  11. 
The  result  of  the  interview  with  Nicodemus  is  not  recorded,  but  the 
subsequent  mention  of  him  in  the  Gospel  can  leave  no  doubt  upon  our 
mind  that,  whether  at  this  moment  or  not,  he  eventually  embraced  the 
truth.  It  would  seem  that,  as  the  humiliation  of  Jesus  deepened,  he 
yielded  the  more  to  that  truth  against  which  at  the  beginning  of  this 
conversation  he  would  most  have  rebelled.  It  is  the  persecution  of 
Jesus  that  draws  him  forward  in  His  defence  (7:  51);  it  is  when 
Jesus  has  been  lifted  up  on  the  cross  that  he  comes  to  pay  Him  honor 
(19:  39).  He  is  thus  a  trophy,  not  of  the  power  of  signs  alone, 
but  the  power  of  the  heavenly  things  taught  by  Jesus. 

At  this  point  an  important  question  arises.  Are  the  next  five  verses  a  continua- 
ation  of  the  preceding  di.scourse?  Are  they  words  of  Jesus  or  a  reflection  by  the  Evan- 
gelist himself  upon  his  Mastar"s  words  ?  Most  commentators  have  taken  the  former 
view.  The  latter  was  first  suggested  by  Erasmus,  and  has  found  favor  with  many 
thoughtful  writers  on  this  Gospel.  And  with  reason.  The  first  suggestion  of  a  sud- 
den break  in  the  discourse  may  be  startling,  but  a  close  examination  of  the  verses  will 


70  JOHN  III.  [3:  16. 

16      For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  on  him  should 

show  that  they  present  distiuct  traces  of  belonging  to  John  :  (1)  Their  general  style 
and  character  remind  us  of  the  Prologue.  (2)  The  past  tenses  '  loved  '  and  '  were '  in 
ver.  19  at  once  recall  chap  1:  10,  11;  and  are  generally  more  in  harmony  with  the 
tone  of  the  Evangelist's  later  reflections  than  with  that  of  the  Redeemer's  discourse. 

(3)  In  ver.  11  Jesus  eays,  '  ye  receive  not  our  testimony  :'  in  ver.  19  the  impression 
produced  is  not  that  of  a  present  refusal,  but  rather  of  a  past  and  continued  rejection. 

(4)  In  no  other  place  is  the  appellation  '  only  begotten  '  used  by  Jesus  Himself  in  re- 
gard to  the  Son,  though  it  is  used  by  the  Evangelist  in  chap.  1 :  14,  1 :  18,  and  1  John 
4:9.  It  cannot  be  fairly  said  that  there  is  anything  really  strange  in  the  introduc- 
tion of  these  reflections.  It  is  altogether  in  the  rnanner  of  this  writer  to  comment 
on  what  he  has  related  (see  especially  12:  37-41);  and  in  at  least  one  instance  he 
passes  suddenly,  without  any  mark  of  transition,  from  the  words  of  another  to  his 
own, — for  very  few  will  suppose  chap.  1 :  16  to  be  a  continuation  of  the  Baptist's 
testimony  (ver.  15).  The  view  now  advocated  will  receive  strong  confirmation  if  we 
convince  the  reader  that  there  is  a  similar  break  after  ver.  30  in  this  chapter,  the  last 
six  verses  belonging  to  the  author  of  the  Gospel  and  not  to  the  Baptist. 

Ver.  16.  For  God  so  loved  the  -world,  that  he  gave  his  only- 
begotten  Son,  that  every  one  that  believeth  in  him  may  not 
perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  [The  whole  gospel  in  a  nutshell.] 
In  the  preceding  verses  is  recorded  the  first  announcement  of  the  gos- 
pel by  our  Lord,  the  revelation  of  the  mystery  made  manifest  by  Him 
who  came  out  of  heaven.  John  pauses  to  set  his  Master's  words  in  the 
light  in  which  he  himself  had  afterwards  beheld  them,  Jesus  bad  said 
*  must  be  lifted  on  high-,'  but  had  given  no  reason.  His  disciple,  whose 
message  to  the  church  was  '  God  is  love'  (1  John  4  :  16),  refers  back 
the  necessity  to  this  truth.  Whatever  remains  still  hidden,  so  much  as 
this  is  certain,  that  the  humiliation  and  exaltation  of  Him  who  came 
down  out  of  heaven  were  the  expression  of  God's  love  to  the  whole 
world.  The  Son  of  man  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  only  begotten  Son  ; 
the  one  term  expresses  His  fitness  for  the  work,  the  other  points  to 
His  dignity  and  greatness  of  the  Father's  love.  In  this  love  the 
Father  gave  the  Son  :  to  ivhat  He  surrendered  Him  is  not  here  said  ; 
our  Lord's  own  words  (ver.  14)  fill  up  the  meaning.  The  universality 
of  the  blessing  is  marked  Avith  twofold  emphasis  ;  designed,  not  for 
Israel  only,  but  for  the  whole  icorld,  it  is  the  actual  possession  of 
every  believer.  The  words  relating  to  faith  are  more  definite  than  in 
ver.  14;  for  (see  chap.  2:  11)  to  '  believe  in  Him'  points  to  a  trust 
which  casts  itself  on  Him  and  presses  into  union  with  Him. — The  Di- 
vine purpose  is  presented  under  two  aspects,  not  one  onl}'  (as  in  ver. 
15) ;  it  is  that  the  believer  maybe  saved  from  perdition,  and  may  now 
possess  eternal  life. — This  verse  contains  most  of  the  leading  terms  of 
John's  theology.  The  'world'  does  not  in  this  verse  designate  those 
who  had  received  and  rejected  the  offer  of  salvation.  It  is  thought  of 
as  at  an  earlier  stage  of  its  history  ;  the  light  is  not  yet  presented  by 


3 :  17,  18.]  JOHN  III.  71 

17  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life.  For  God  sent  not 
the  Son  into  the  world  to  judge  the  world ;  but  that 

18  the  world  should  be  saved  through  him.  He  that  be- 
lieveth  on  him  is  not  judged :  he  that  believeth  not 
hath  been  judged  already,  because  he  hath  not  be- 

the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  which  the  final  state  of  the  world  shall 
be  determined. 

Ver.  17.  For  God  sent  not  the  Son  into  the  world  that 
he  may  judge  the  world  ;  but  that  the  world  through  him 
may  be  saved.  The  thought  of  the  last  verse  is  expanded.  There 
it  was  the  gift  of  God's  love  that  was  brought  before  us  ;  now  it  is  the 
mission  of  the  Son.  To  '  may  perish  (ver.  16)  here  corresponds  '  may 
judge  the  world,  to  *  have  eternal  life  '  answers  '  may  be  saved.'  This 
alone  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  word  'judge,'  though  not  in  itself 
equivalent  to  '  condemn,'  has  reference  to  a  judgment  which  tends  to 
condemnation.  The  Jews  believed  that  Messiah  would  come  to  glorify 
Israel,  but  to  judge  the  Gentiles  ;  the  solemn  and  emphatic  repetition 
of  '  the  world '  rebukes  all  such  limitations,  as  efi'ectually  as  the  words 
of  ver.  3  set  aside  the  distinctions  which  were  present  to  the  thought 
of  Nicodemus. — It  may  seem  hard  to  reconcile  the  first  part  of  this 
verse  with  5 :  22,27;  9:  39;  12:  48.  We  must,  however,  recog- 
nise a  twofold  purpose  in  Christ's  coming.  He  came  to  save,  not  to 
judge  the  world.  He  came  to  judge  the  world  in  so  far  as  it  will  not 
allow  itself  to  be  saved ;  and  this  judgment  is  one  that  takes  place 
even  now  (because  even  now  there  is  wilful  unbelief;,  though  it  will 
be  consumed  hereafter. 

Ver.  18.  He  that  believeth  in  him  is  not  judged  :  he  that 
believeth  not  hath  been  judged  already,  because  he  hath 
not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God. 
The  two  preceding  verses  express  the  Divine  purpose  in  itself,  and 
that  purpose  passing  into  accomplishment ;  this  verse  speaks  of  the 
actual  result.  Two  of  the  terms  of  these  verses,  the  believing  in  Jesus 
of  ver.  16  and  judging  of  ver.  17,  are  here  brought  together.  He  that 
abides  in  faith  in  Christ  abides  in  a  state  to  which  judging  belongs  not ; 
whilst  the  faith  remains,  the  idea  of  judgment  is  excluded,  for  the  be- 
liever is  one  with  the  Lord  in  whom  he  has  placed  his  trust.  Not  so  with 
the  unbeliever  ;  on  him  the  sentence  of  judgment  is  already  pronounced. 
As  long  as  the  unbelief  is  persisted  in,  so  long  does  the  sentence 
which  the  rejection  of  Jesus  brings  vrith  it  remain  in  force  against 
him.  The  great  idea  of  the  Gospel,  the  division  of  all  men  into  two 
classes  severed  from  each  other,  is  very  clearly  presented  here  ;  but  no 
unchangeable  division  is  thought  of.  The  separation  is  the  result  of 
deliberate  choice ;  and  whilst  the  choice  is  adhered  to,  the  severance 
abides. — As  the  faith  of  the  believer  is  faith  'in  Him,'  faith  that 
brings  personal  union,  the  unbelief  is  the  rejection  of  His  Person  re- 
vealed in  all  its  dignity,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God. 


72  JOHN  III.  [3:  19,20. 

lieved  on  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God. 

19  And  this  is  the  judgment,  that  the  light  is  come  into 
the  world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than 

20  the  light ;  for  their  works  were  evil.     For  every  one 

Ver.  19.  And  this  is  the  judgment, — the  judgment  is  of  this 
kind,  takes  phxce  thus, — because  the  light  is  come  into  the 
■world,  and  men  loved  the  darkness  rather  than  the  light, 
for  their  -works  were  wicked.  These  words  bring  out  clearly 
that  the  '  not  believing  '  spoken  of  in  the  last  verse  signifies  an  active 
rejection,  and  not  the  mere  absence  of  belief— a  rejection  of  the  true 
light  which  in  the  person  of  Jesus  came  into  the  world,  and  hence- 
forth ever  is  in  the  world.  Men  loved  the  darkness,  for  their  works 
— not  single  deeds,  but  the  whole  expression  and  manifestation  of  their 
life — were  wicked.  The  word  used  ('wicked')  is  that  which  else- 
where expresses  the  character  of  the  arch-enemy  as  '  the  wicked 
one'  (John  17  :  15  ;  1  John  3  :  12).  It  denotes  active  evil,  positive 
and  pronounced  wickedness. 

Ver.  20.  For  every  one  that  committeth  evil  hateth  the 
light,  and  he  cometh  not  to  the  light  lest  his  works  should 
be  convicted.  This  verse  explains  the  last,  and  refers  the  action 
there  described  to  a  general  principle.  The  universal  law  is,  that  he 
who  committeth  evil  hateth  the  light.  Not  '  he  that  hath  committed,' 
for  what  is  spoken  of  is  the  bent  and  the  spirit  of  the  man's  life.  The 
word  '  evil '  here  is  not  the  same  as  that  rendered  '  wicked '  in  ver.  19, 
but  is  more  general.  The  one  word  means  evil  in  active  manifestation  ; 
the  other  what  is  worthless,  good  for  nothing.  No  doubt  the  second 
word  is  used  in  this  verse  partly  for  the  sake  of  vivid  conti-ast  with  the 
real  and  abiding  '  truth'  of  ver.  21,  partly  because  what  is  worthless 
and  unsubstantial  will  not  stand  the  test  of  coming  to  that  very  light 
which  shows  in  all  its  reality  whatever  is  substantial  and  true.  Every 
one  whose  life  is  thus  evil  knows  that  in  the  presence  of  the  light  he 
must  stand  self-condemned.  The  experience  is  painful,  and  he  endea- 
vors to  avoid  it  by  turning  from  the  light,  till,  as  conscience  still 
asserts  its  power,  he  seeks  defence  against  himself  by  hating  the  light 
(compare  1  Kings  22  :  8).  We  must  not  forget  the  application  that  is 
in  John's  mind.  The  light  that  is  come  is  Jesus  Himself.  He  is  come; 
but  men  also  must  come  to  Him.  If  they  came  not,  the  cause  was  a 
moral  one.  Before  He  came,  some  light  had  been  in  the  world  (1 :  5) ; 
those  who,  living  a  life  of  evil  (whether  open  wickedness  or  a  worth- 
less self-righteousness),  hated  this  light,  were  thus  prepared  to  reject 
the  Light  Himself.  The  last  word  of  the  verse  is  remarkable,  as  it  is 
more  naturally  applied  to  the  doer  than  to  his  deed.  Not  only  will  the 
works  be  shown  by  the  light — be  exposed  in  their  true  character ;  the 
works  are  looked  on  as  if  of  themselves  the  criminals  — they  will  be 
self-convicted,  self-condemned.  The  thought  of  self-conviction  has  in 
this  Gospel  an  importance  that  can  hardly  be  over-estimated. 


3:  21,  22.]  JOHN  III.  73 

that  ^  doetli  ill  *  hatetli  the  light,  and  cometh  not  to 

21  the  light,  lest  his  works  should  be  ^reproved.    But  he 
thatdoeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the  light,  that  his  works 
maj  be  made  manifest,  ^that  they  have  been  wrought  ^ 
in  God.  ^ 

Chapter  3:  22-36. 

The  Fassing  away  of  the  Baptist  in  the  presence  of  the 
True  Bridegroom  of  the  Church. 

22  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into 
the  land  of  Judaea ;  and  there  he  tarried  with  them, 

'^OVjpracticeth.  ^  Or,  convicted.  ^  Or,  because. 

*  For  "  ill "  read  "  evil."     So  in  ver.  29. — Am.  Com. 

Ver.  21.  But  he  that  doeth  the  truth  cometh  to  the  light, 
that  his  "works  may  be  made  manifest,  because  they  have 
been  -wrought  in  God.  lu  contrast  with  those  who  commit  evil  is 
another  chiss — those  who  do  the  truth.  The  words  expressing  action 
in  vers.  20,  21,  are  different:  that  in  ver.  20  ('comraitteth')  refers  di- 
rectly to  the  particular  acts,  that  which  is  used  here  (which  properly 
denotes  to  make,  to  produce)  brings  into  view  rather  the  result.  The 
man  here  spoken  of  is  (so  to  speak)  at  work  in  raising  the  abiding 
structure  of  '  the  truth.'  So  far  as  the  truth  has  been  revealed  to  him, 
his  life  is  ftiithful  to  it ;  his  works  are  an  expression  of  the  truth  that 
is  in  his  heart.  As  Jesus  says  (chap.  18:  37),  'Every  one  that  is  of 
the  truth  heareth  my  voice  ; '  so  here  we  read,  '  He  that  doeth  the  truth 
cometh  to  the  light.'  There  is  a  natural  affinity  between  truth  and 
light ;  he  who  is  faithful  to  truth  received  is,  through  the  very  nature 
of  the  truth  within  him,  impelled  towards  Him  who  is  the  Truth.  He 
does  not  come  to  the  light  that  his  works  may  be  made  known  to 
others;  there  is  no  self-seeking, — perhaps  even  it  is  not  the  conscious 
purpose  of  the  man  himself  that  is  spoken  of,  but  rather  the  instinctive 
aim  of  the  truth  within  him,  and  thus  in  reality  the  purpose  of  God, 
that  all  the  works  of  God  be  made  manifest.  The  works  of  this  doer 
of  truth  have  been  wrought  in  God.  The  discipline  by  which  he  is  led 
to  the  Son  is  of  the  Father  (see  chap.  6  especially).  For  this  cause  he 
comes,  and  must  needs  come,  at  the  bidding  of  the  truth,  that  the  works 
of  God  in  him  may  be  brought  out  of  all  concealment  and  made  mani- 
fest. His  coming  to  Christ  is  itself  a  manifestation  of  the  preceding 
work  of  God  in  him. 

The  Passing  away  of  the  Baptist  in  the  presence  of  the  True  Bridegroom  of 
the  Church.— Vers.  22-36. 

CoxTESTS. — This  section  affords  us  our  last  view  of  the  great  Forerunner  when,  at 
the  moment  of  hid  disappearance,  he  utters  his  highest  testimony  to  Jesus  as  the  true 


74  JOHN  III.  [3:  22,23. 

23  and  baptized.   And  John  also  was  baptizing  in  ^non 
near  to  Salim,  because  there  ^  was  much  water  there : 

1  Gr.  were  many  waters. 

Bridegroom  of  the  Church,  alone  to  be  welcomed  by  all  waiting  hearts.  Hence  it 
immediately  precedes  Christ's  proclamation  of  His  truth  beyond  Judea.  The  subor- 
dinate parts  are— (1)  vers.  22-30  ;  (2)  vers.  31-36, 

Ver.  22.  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
into  the  land  of  Judea ;  and  there  he  tarried  w^ith  them,  and 
baptized.  The  introductory  words  'After  these  things'  may  possi- 
bly include  a  considerable  period.  Apparently  several  months  inter- 
vened between  the  Passover  of  chap.  2 :  13  and  the  visit  to  Samaria 
(chap.  4);  but  only  two  events  belonging  to  this  period  are  related. 
The  words  of  this  verse,  however  [tarried  and  baptized),  show  that  af- 
ter leaving  Jerusalem  .Jesus  remained  for  some  length  of  time  in  the 
country  parts  of  Judea.  In  no  other  passage  than  this  is  there  any 
mention  of  the  Saviour's  baptizing,  and  chap.  4:  2  explains  that  this 
baptism  was  only  indirectly  His.  Still,  however,  it  is  clear  that  the 
baptism  was  by  the  authority  of  Jesus,  the  disciples  acting  only  as  His 
ministers.  Yet  they  did  not  baptize  with  Christian  baptism  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  term.  They  were  engaged  in  preparatory  work  like  that 
of  the  Baptist,  just  as  the  Twelve  were  sent  forth  by  Jesus  to  declare 
the  very  message  which  John  had  preached  (Matt.  10:  7).  The  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit  was  still  future  (chap.  7  :  39).  The  next  verse  shows 
the  main  design  of  this  section.  When  Jesus  baptized  in  Judea,  He 
came  into  direct  and  necessary  comparison  with  John. 

Ver.  23.  And  John  also  "was  baptizing  in  -SJnon  near  to 
Salim,  because  there  -were  many  -waters  there ;  and  they 
came  and  -were  baptized.  Where  ^Enon  and  Salim  were  situated 
it  is  not  easy  to  determine.  The  position  assigned  them  by  Eusebius 
and  Jerome,  near  the  northern  boundary  of  Samaria,  does  not  agree 
well  with  ver.  22.  It  is  more  probable  that  Salim  is  the  Shilhim  (trans- 
lated Salem  in  the  LXX.)  of  Josh.  15 :  32,  a  town  not  far  from  the 
southern  limit  of  Judea.  In  this  verse  of  Joshua  (in  the  Hebrew) 
Shilhim  is  directly  followed  by  Ain,  from  which  ^non  differs  only  in 
being  an  intensive  form — Ain  denoting  a  spring,  and  j^non,  springs. 
The  objection  to  this  identification  is  that,  as  John  was  clearly  in  the 
neighborhood  of  Jesus,  it  takes  the  latter  from  the  route  leading  to 
Samaria  and  Galilee.  But  the  history  of  the  events  of  the  period  is 
so  brief  and  fragmentary  that  this  objection  has  not  much  weight. 
John  no  doubt  alludes  to  the  meaning  of  jEnon  when  he  adds  that 
there  were  'man}'  waters'  there.  [The  most  probable  site  of  iEnon 
is  at  the  present  village  Salim,  east  of  Nablus  (Shechem)  in  Samaria, 
near  the  passage  of  the  Jordan  at  Succoth,  and  far  away  from  that 
near  Jericho.  There  are  copious  springs  there,  and  three  or  four 
miles  north  of  the  springs  is  a  village  called  'Agnu7i.  This  is  the  view 
of  Robinson,  Stanley,  Conder,  Thomson. — P.  S.] 


3:  24-27.]  JOHN  III.  75 

24  and  they  came,  and  were  baptized.    For  John  was  not 

25  yet  cast  into  prison.  There  arose  therefore  a  ques- 
tioning on  the  part  of  John's  disciples  with  a  Jew 

26  about  purifying.  And  they  came  unto  John,  and  said 
to  him,  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan, 
to  whom  thou  hast  borne  witness,  behold,  the  same 

27  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him.  John  answered 
and  said,  A  man  can  receive  nothing,  except  it  have 

Yer.  24,  For  John  -was  not  yet  cast  into  prison.  Words  in 
which  the  Evangelist  vindicates  the  accuracy  of  his  narrative,  and 
corrects  a  mistake  apparently  prevailing  in  the  Church  when  he  wrote. 
The  earlier  Gospels,  dealing  mainly  with  the  Galilean  work  of  Jesus, 
do  not  mention  His  entering  upon  His  public  ministry  until  after  the 
Baptist  had  been  delivered  up.  This  seems  to  have  led  to  an  impres- 
sion that  the  Baptist  was  imprisoned  before  our  Lord  entered  on  His 
public  work.     The  false  inference  is  here  corrected. 

Ver.  26.  There  arose  therefore  a  questioning  on  the  part 
of  John's  disciples  -Nvith  a  Jew  about  purifying.  In  the  cir- 
cumstances just  described,  discussion  would  inevitably  arise  as  to  the 
relative  position  and  value  of  the  two  baptisms.  A  '  Jew  '  (see  note 
on  chap.  1:19)  had  placed  the  baptism  of  Jesus  above  that  of  John 
in  regard  to  its  purifying  power.  Although  the  Jews  in  general  were 
hostile  to  Jesus,  this  man  may  have  shared  the  convictions  of  Nicode- 
mus  (vers.  1 :  2).  The  disciples  of  John  refused  to  regard  their  mas- 
ter's baptism  as  less  efficacious  than  that  of  another,  who  had  been 
himself  baptized  by  him.  Unable  either  feo  set  the  question  at  rest, 
or  to  ignore  the  opposition  of  the  Jew,  they  brought  the  matter  of  con- 
tention before  John.  On  the  symbolic  character  of  John's  baptism, 
see  the  note  on  ver.  5  ;  on  '  purification,'  eee  2:6;  13  :  10  ;  15 :  3, 
and  1  John  1  :  7,  9, 

Ver,  26.  And  they  came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him, 
Rabbi,  he  that -was -with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to -whom  thou 
hast  borne  -witness,  behold,  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all 
men  come  to  him.  Their  description  of  Jesus  (whom  they  do  not 
name)  shows  their  feelings.  This  man  came  to  thee  beyond  Jordan, 
it  has  been  thy  great  object  to  magnify  his  fame  ;  and  yet  he  is  now 
thy  rival,  he  baptizes,  and  all  are  flocking  to  him  rather  than  to  thee. 
Their  last  words  are  in  their  lips  but  a  natural  exaggeration  ;  to  the 
Evangelist,  however,  they  are  an  unconscious  prophecy  (see  an  ex- 
actly similar  instance  in  12  :  19,  20).  This  is  the  last  trial  of  the 
Baptist's  fidelity  to  his  mission,  and  nobly  is  it  sustained 

Ver.  27.  John  ansvvrered  and  said,  A  man  can  receive 
nothing,  except  it  have  been  given  him  out  of  heaven.  Not 
for  a  moment  does  he  enter  into  their  jealous  advocacy  of  his  claims. 
Understanding  the  true  force  of  their  hasty  words,  '  All  men  come  to 


76  JOHN  III.  [3 !  28,  29. 

28  been  given  him  from  heaven.  Ye  yourselves  bear  me 
witness,  that  I  said,  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but,  that  I 

29  am  sent  before  him.  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the 
bridegroom :  but  tlie  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  which 
standeth  and  heareth  him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of 
the  bridegroom's  voice :  this  my  joy  therefore  is  ful- 

him,'  he  tells  them  that  such  honor,  such  position,  Jesus  cannot  re- 
ceive unless  it  have  been  givea  Him  from  heaven.  He  says  this  in 
words  so  general  that  they  seem  certainly  intended  to  point  to  him- 
self also.  '  Each  of  us,  in  accomplishing  God's  work,  will  receive  the 
place  appointed  to  him  from  heaven.' 

Ver.  28.  Ye  yourselves  bear  me  -witness,  that  I  said,  I 
am  not  the  Christ,  but  I  am  sent  before  him.  The  acceptance 
of  the  lower  place  was  no  new  thing  to  John.  '  Ye  remind  me  that  I 
have  borne  witness  to  Him  ;  ye  yourselves  bear  witness  to  me,  that 
my  testimony  to  Him  contained  in  it  all  that  now  offends  you.'  Of  the 
two  sayings  here  quoted,  one  ('  I  am  not  the  Christ')  is  to  be  found 
in  1 :  20 :  the  other  is  not  given  in  this  Gospel  in  the  very  words,  but 
is  implied  in  1  :  30,  31,  and  no  doubt  had  been  expressly  uttered  by 
John  to  his  disciples. 

Ver.  29.  He  that  hath  the  bride  is  the  bridegroom :  but 
the  friend  of  the  bridegroom,  w^ho  standeth  and  heareth 
him,  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the  bridegroom's  voice: 
this  my  joy  therefore  hath  been  made  full.  '  He  that  hath  the 
bride,'  he  and  no  other,  '  is  the  bridegroom.'  The  Lord  is  taking  home 
His  bride — His  people.  To  the  name  of  bridegroom  I  have  no  claim, 
nor  can  I  have  the  bridegroom's  joy.  But  in  his  joy  his  friends 
must  needs  share.  The  friend  of  the  bridegroom  that  standeth  and 
heareth  his  voice,  catching  the  first  sound  as  he  draws  near,  listening 
to  the  words  and  tones  in  which  his  joy  breaks  forth  throughout  the 
marringe  feast,  he  too  has  his  joy,  a  reflection  of  the  rejoicing  of  the 
bridegiojm:  this  joy  is  mine,  and  it  is  now  filled  to  the  full.'  In 
these  exquisitely  tender  and  beautiful  words  does  the  Baptist  at  once 
reprove  the  natural  but  petty  jealousies  of  his  disciples  and  set  forth 
his  own  relation  to  Jesus.  The  image  employed  is  common  in  the  Old 
Testament  (Isa.  54  ;  Jer.  3  :  31 ;  Hos.  2  ;  Ezek.  16,  23),  even  if  nothing 
be  said  of  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  is  taken  up  in  the  New  (Matt.  9  : 
15,  25 ;  2  Cor.  11  ;  Eph.  5  ;  Rev.  19,  21).  By  the  '  friend'  John  does 
not  mean  the  particular  fi-iend  who  presided  over  the  marriage  cere- 
monies (the  Shoshben),  for  the  words  '  standeth  and  heareth  '  are  un- 
suitable to  a  functionary  whose  duties  were  those  of  action.  But  these 
words  exactly  correspond  to  the  position  of  the  Baptist  as  one  who 
stood  apart  and  listened.  Once  only  does  the  Forerunner  seem  to  have 
met  with  Jesus  :  afterwards  he  watched  His  course  and  rejoiced,  and 
pointed  his  disciples  to  his  Lord. 


3 :  30, 31.]  JOHN  III.  77 

30  filled.*     He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease. 

31  He  that  cometli  from  above  is  above  all :  he  that  is 
of  the  earth   is  of  the  earth,  and  of  the   earth   he 

♦For  'fulfilled'  read  'made  full'  [and  so  15;  11;  16:  24;  17:  13.  [See  '  Classes  of 
Passages,'  14]. — Am.  Com. 

Yer.  30.  He  must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease.  What  the 
disciples  now  see  is  but  the  beginning  of  a  process  that  must  continue. 
The  necessity  spoken  of  here  is  another  statement  of  the  heavenly 
gift  of  ver.  27.  John  must  become  less  and  less,  whilst  the  glory  of 
his  Lord  will  increase  without  limit  or  end  ;  and  thus  his  '  decreas- 
ing '  IS  not  the  failure  but  the  accomplishment  of  his  work.* 

It  is  quite  impossible  to  read  carefully  the  following  verses  without 
perceiving  that  they  bear  a  remarkable  resemblance  to  the  early  part 
of  the  chapter,  and  that  the  general  style  and  language  are  those  of 
the  Evangelist  himself.  In  ver.  31  we  read  of  him  *  that  cometh  out 
of  heaven  ;'  in  ver.  13  of  Him  "that  came  down  out  of  heaven.'  That  He 
who  is  from  heaven  beareth  witness  of  what  He  hath  seen,  and  that 
His  witness  is  not  received,  we  read  both  in  ver.  32  and  in  ver.  11. 
The  35th  verse  might  perhaps  seem  to  contain  Christ's  own  words, 
but  not  such  as  the  Baptist  would  be  likely  to  employ.  So  also  in 
ver.  36  all  the  terms  used,  '  he  that  believeth  in,'  '  the  Son  '  (standing 
absolutely),  '  eternal  life,'  •  hath  eternal  life,'  remind  us  of  the  language 
of  the  Evangelist  himself  and  of  Christ's  discourses  as  related  in  this 
Gospel,  especially  in  this  chapter  (vers.  15,  16,  17),  but  it  is  hardly 
possible  to  suppose  them  used  by  John  the  Baptist.  Those  writers 
who  cannot  admit  that  there  is  a  break  after  ver.  30  are  constrained  to 
confess  that  the  Baptist's  subsequent  words  are  expressed  in  the  Evan- 
gelist's own  language  and  style.  It  is  a  far  simpler  and  more  proba- 
ble theory  that  the  Evangelist  (as  in  1 :  16  and  3  :  16 — see  notes  there) 
passes  from  his  narrative  into  a  meditation  which  it  suggests,  gather- 
ing together  the  main  thoughts  of  the  two  sections  which  precede. 

Ver.  31.  He  that  cometh  from  above  is  above  all;  He 
that  is  out  of  the  earth  is  out  of  the  earth,  and  out  of  the 
earth  he  speaketh.  The  claim  of  the  Baptist's  disciples  that  to  their 
master  should  be  accorded  a  higher  place  than  to  Jesus,  and  John's 
emphatic  testimony  to  his  own  lower  station,  lead  the  Evangelist  to 
reflect  upon  the  words  of  Jesus  to  Nicodemus  as  decisive  of  all  such 

[*  'The  true  description  of  the  relation  between  John  and  Christ,  and  between  the 
Old  Covenant  and  the  New,  in  the  primitive  church,  in  the  mediaeval  church,  in 
this  modem  age,  in  the  life  of  everj-  evangelical  community  and  of  every  individual 
Christian.  Increase:  in  lalwrs, in  authority,  in  disciples.  Decrease:  be  diminished. 
Noble  freedom  from  en\-y.  An  admonition  to  his  disciples.  St.  John  the  Baptist's 
day  in  the  calendar,  the  longest  day  C  June  24th),  after  which  the  days  decrease ;  the 
birth-day  of  Christ  (Dec.  2.5),  one  of  the  shortest,  from  which  the  days  grow  lon- 
ger.'—Lange.) 


78  JOHN  III.  [3 :  32-34. 

speaketh  :  ^  he  that  coraeth  from  heaven  is  above  all. 

32  What  he  hath  seen  and  heard,  of  that  he  beareth  wit- 

33  ness ;  and   no  man  receiveth  his  witness.     He   that 
hath  received  his  witness  hath  set  his  seal  to  tkis,  that 

34  God  is  true.     For  he  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh 
the  words  of  God :  for  he  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  he  that  cometh  from  heaven  beareth  witness  of  what  he 
hath  seen  and  heard. 

questions.  *  He  that  cometh  from  above '  and  *  He  that  cometh  out  of 
heaven '  are  clearly  the  same  as  '  He  that  came  down  out  of  heaven ' 
(ver.  13),  and  all  three  expressions  are  designations  of  Jesus.  There 
is  but  One  who  thus  '  cometh  from  above'  (though  many  others  have 
received  their  mission  from  above),  and  He  therefore  is  above  all.  In 
comparison  with  Him,  every  other  prophet  or  teacher  has  his  origin 
out  of  the  earth  ;  and  as  is  his  origin,  so  is  his  nature,  so  is  his  ut- 
terance. 

Ver.  32.  He  that  cometh  out  of  heaven  beareth  -witness 
of  -what  he  hath  seen  and  heard ;  and  no  man  receiveth 
his  witness.  In  ver.  12  we  have  seen  that  heaven  is  spoken  of  as 
the  place  of  immediate  divine  knowledge  and  light.  Jesus  alone  be- 
longs to  this  sphere  :  all  the  prophets  before  His  coming,  though  di- 
vinely commissioned,  had  'the  earth'  as  the  starting-point  of  their 
utterances,  spoke  of  what  they  had  received  on  earth,  spoke  truly  but 
not  perfectly.  The  Divine  light  was  reflected  from  the  prophets  to 
the  woi'ld  around.  In  Jesus  the  heavenly  light  itself  came  into  the 
woi'ld.  Jesus  alone,  then,  beareth  witness  to  that  which  He  hath  seen 
and  which  He  heard,  and  (here  again  is  the  mournful  cadence  of  this 
Gospel)  no  one  receiveth  His  witness.  So  few  receive,  that  they  seem 
as  nothing  in  comparison  with  those  who  reject.  That  the  rejection  is 
not  in  strictness  universal  the  next  verse  declares. 

Ver.  33.  He  that  received  his  witness  set  his  seal  to  this, 
that  God  is  true.  Every  man  who  accepts  His  witness  and  thus 
declares  that  Jesus  is  true,  in  that  very  act  attests,  sets  his  seal  to,  the 
declaration  that  God  is  true.  (For  the  opposite,  see  1  John  5:10).  A 
mere  prophet  miglit  be  unfaithful  or  might  err.  Jesus  '  comes  out  of 
heaven,'  declares  '  what  He  hath  seen,'  and  '  what  He  heard '  from 
God  :  to  disbelieve  Him  is  to  disbelieve  God,  to  declare  Him  true  is 
to  declare  God  true.  This  is  further  explained  and  confirmed  by  the 
next  verse. 

Ver.  34.  For  he  whom  God  sent  speaketh  the  words  of 
God.  The  last  verse  rests  on  the  thought  that  the  words  of  Jesus 
are  the  words  of  God.  Here  it  is  shown  that  this  is  involved  in  the 
very  proposition  that  Jesus  is  the  Sent  of  God.  Strictly,  there  have 
been  many  whom  God  has  sent, —  for  example,  John  the  Baptist  (chap. 
1 :  6) :  his  words  were  true,  and  were  words  of  God.  But  where  one 
is  thus  isolated  as  sent  by  God  (and  this  is  repeatedlv  done  in  this 


3:  35,86.]  JOHN  III.  79 

35  measure.    The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given 

36  all  things  into  his  hand.  He  that  believeth  on  the 
Son  hath  eternal  life ;  but  he  that  ^  obeyeth  not  the 
Son  shall  not  see  life,  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth 
on  him. 

1  Or,  believeth  not. 

Gospel),  he  is  the  Sent  in  a  peculiar  and  pre-eminent  sense.  He  speak eth 
not  '  words  of  God  '  only,  but  '  the  words  of  God,'  giving  all  the  reve- 
lation that  God  gives.  The  enabling  power  thus  to  speak  is  the  gift  of 
the  Spirit.  Every  one  whom  God  sends  is  enabled  to  speak  God's 
words — words  that,  for  the  portion  of  the  revelation  he  is  com- 
missioned to  give,  are  truly  God's  words — For  not  by  measure 
giveth  he  the  Spirit.  He  gives  the  Spirit  not  partially,  but  com- 
pletely, for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  who  is  sent  to  speak  words 
of  God.  Rising  from  the  partial  and  incomplete  to  that  which  is  full 
and  perfect,  wo  find  but  One  Avho  has  thus  been  sent  by  God,  and  but 
One  who  receives  the  Spirit  in  unmeasured  fulness,  enabling  not  for 
the  complete  declaration  of  a  part  only,  but  for  the  perfect  revelation 
of  the  whole  of  the  words  of  God. 

Ver.  35.  The  Father  loveth  the  Son.  There  is  a  continual 
heightening  of  the  thought  and  expression.  "We  read  of  Him  '  that 
Cometh  from  above,'  Him  '  that  cometh  out  of  heaven,'  Him  '  whom 
God  sent,' — <the  Son,'  whom  'the  Father  loveth.'  In  ver.  17  we  read 
that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  save  the  world,  because  He  'so  loved 
the  world'  (ver.  16) :  here  we  read  of  the  love  of  the  Father  towards 
the  Son,  who  thus  gave  Himself  for  the  accomplishment  of  the  pur- 
pose of  the  Father.  From  chap.  10  :  17  it  seems  probable  that  it  is 
of  this  love  that  we  must  understand  the  verse — of  a  love,  therefore,  re- 
ferring to  the  work  of  redemption,  not  to  the  essential  relation  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father  (comp.  note  on  o :  20). — And  hath  given  all 
things  into  his  hands.  From  perfect  love  follows  perfect  com- 
munication not  of  '  the  words  of  God  '  only  (ver.  34),  but  of  all  things 
possessed.  The  Father  has  given  all  things  into  the  Son's  hand. 
Whatsoever  the  Son  speaks  or  gives  or  does,  is  spoken,  given,  done, 
by  the  Father. 

Ver.  36.  He  that  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  eternal  life. 
As  all  things  are  in  the  Son's  hand  by  the  gift  of  the  Father,  the  des- 
tiny of  all  men  depends  on  their  relation  to  the  Son.  He  that  be- 
lieveth in  the  Son  has  in  Him  the  highest  of  all  blessings,  life  eternal ; 
has  this  in  present  possession — involved  in  the  communion  of  faith  in 
which  he  lives. — But  he  that  obeyeth  not  the  Son  shall  not 
see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him.  Over 
against  the  believer  is  here  set,  not  the  man  who  does  not  believe,  but 
he  that  disobeys.  The  change  from  believing  to  obedience  results 
from  the  thought  of  the  last  verse :  supreme  power  is  given  to  the 
Son  ;    therefore  he   that  receives  Him  not  by  faith  is  guilty  of  diso- 


80  JOHN  IV.  [4:  1. 

Chapter  4:  1-42. 

Jesus  and  the  Samaritans. 

1      When   therefore    the   Lord    knew   how   that   the 
Pharisees   had   heard    that   Jesus   was   making   and 

beying  His  authority;  not  faitli  only,  but  tlie  obedience  of  faith,  is  His 
due.  From  the  eyes  of  all  such  life  is  hidden  whilst  the  unbelief  and 
disobedience  shall  last.  The  rejection  of  the  Son  brings  with  it  the 
wrath  of  God,  by  whom  all  things  were  given  into  the  Son's  hand  : 
this  is  the  present  and  the  abiding  heritage  of  him  that  obeyeth  not  the 
Son. 

Jesus  and  the  Samaritans. — Vers.  1-42. 

Contents. — The  general  object  aimed  at  in  the  relation  of  the  story  of  Nicodemus 
in  chap.  3  is  pursued  in  the  account  given  us  in  this  section  of  the  interview  of  Jesus, 
first  with  the  Samaritan  woman,  and  then  with  the  inhabitants  of  Sychar,  who  are 
brought  by  her  to  listen  to  His  teaching.  The  subordinate  parts  are— (1)  vers.  1-4, 
introductory,  after  the  manner  of  tlie  inti'oduction  to  the  story  of  Nicodemus  in  2  : 
23-25  ;  (2)  vers.  6-26,  interview  with  the  Samaritan  woman  ;  {.i)  vers.  27-30,  the  mis- 
sion of  the  woman  to  her  fellow- townsmen  ;  (4)  vers.  31-38,  the  conversation  of  Jesus 
with  His  disciples  in  regard  to  the  nature  and  success  of  their  work ;  (5)  vers.  39-42, 
the  work  of  Jesus  among  the  inhabitants  of  Sychar. 

[The  scene  at  Jacobs  well  presents  a  most  graphic, and  yet  most  unartificial  picture 
of  nature  and  human  life  as  it  still  remains,  though  in  decay,  at  the  foot  of  Gerizim 
and  Ebal,  the  most  beautiful  section  of  Palestine.  There  is  still  the  well  of  Jacob,  re- 
cognized as  such  by  Samaritans,  Jews,  Mohammedans,  and  Christians  alike ;  there  the 
sanctuary  on  the  top  of  Gerizim,  where  the  Passover  is  annually  celebrated  by  the  rem- 
nant of  the  Samaritan  sect,  according  to  the  prescription  of  Moses ;  there  are  the 
•waving  grainfields,  ripening  for  the  harvest  in  the  well-watered,  fertile  valley.  "We 
are  confronted  with  the  historic  antagonisnn  of  Jews  and  Samaritans,  which  survives 
in  Nablus,  the  modern  Shechem,  where  the  Samaritan  synagogue  and  the  Samar- 
itan Pentateuch  are  shown  to  the  stranger;  here  we  see  the  genuine  humanity  of  Je- 
sus as  He  sat  down,  'wearied  with  His  journey,'  though  not  weary  of  His  work  of  sav- 
ing souls,  His  elevation  above  the  rabbinical  prejudice  which  forbade  conversing  with 
any  woman  out  of  doors,  his  superhuman  knowledge  and  dignity,  and  his  surpassing 
wisdom  of  parabolic  teaching;  here  the  life-like  sketch  of  a  sinful,  yet  quick  witted  wo- 
man, full  of  curiosity  and  interest  in  the  religious  question  of  the  day  and  running 
to  tell  her  neighbors  her  great  discovery  of  the  prophet  who  had  touched  her  con- 
science, excited  her  thirst  for  the  water  of  life,  and  led  her  from  Jacob's  well  to  the 
fountain  of  salvation,  and  from  the  dispute  about  the  place  of  worship  to  the  highest 
conception  of  God  as  an  omnipotent  Spirit  to  be  worshipped  in  spirit  and  in  truth. 
Truly,  no  jwet  could  have  invented  such  a  story,  and  no  historian  who  was  not  present 
at  the  scene  could  have  told  it  so  well. — P.  S.] 

Vers.  1-3,  When  therefore  the  Lord  perceived  that  the 
Pharisees  had  heard,  that  Jesus  maketh  and  baptizeth  more 
disciples  than  John  (though  Jesus  himself  baptized   not, 


4:  2.]  JOHN  IV.  ^1 

2  baptizing  more  disciples  than  John  (although  Jesus 

but  his  disciples,)  he  left  Judaea,  and  departed  again  into 
Galilee.  The  object  of  these  verses  is  to  explain  the  reason  why 
Jesus  now  left  Judasa  for  Galilee.  How  long  He  had  remained  in  Ju- 
dsea  we  are  not  intbrmcd  (seethe  note  on  chap.  3  :  22),  being  only  told 
that  in  the  country  districts  the  success  of  His  ministry  had  excited 
the  notice  of  the  Pharisees  (of  Jerusalem),  and  had  led  to  comparisons 
between  the  two  teachers  who  had  so  suddenly  appeared  in  the  land. 
It  will  be  observed  that  the  circumstances  described  in  this  verse  are 
substantially  the  same  as  those  brought  before  us  in  the  words  of  the 
disciples  of  John  after  their  disputation  with  the  Jew  (chap.  3  :  26). 
They  said  to  their  master  that  to  Jesus  all  were  coming, — that  is,  by 
plain  inference,  more  were  flocking  to  Jesus  than  to  the  Baptist.  It  is 
only  necessary  to  allow  a  short  interval  of  time  for  the  diffusion  of  the 
news,  and  we  are  brought  to  the  state  of  things  presented  here.  If, 
then,  there  is  this  close  connection  between  chap.  3 :  25,  26,  and  the 
opening  of  the  pi'esent  chapter,  it  seems  impossible  to  believe  that  the 
imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  can  have  taken  place  in  the  interval, 
when  in  chap.  3:  24  the  Evangelist  expressly  refers  to  the  fact  that 
John  was  as  yet  at  liberty.  The  imprisonment  is  nowhere  expressly 
mentioned  by  him ;  but  while  it  is  very  easy  to  understand  such  an 
omission  if  the  event  fell  in  one  of  those  intervals  which  separate  so 
markedly  the  successive  narratives  of  his  Gospel,  it  would  be  strange 
if,  in  a  closely  connected  paragraph,  he  should  first  record  that  the 
imprisonment  had  not  yet  taken  place,  and  then,  although  .the  event 
took  place  at  the  very  time,  pass  over  it  in  silence.  It  seems,  then, 
much  more  natural  to  interpret  the  words  heard  by  the  Pharisees  as 
meaning  that  Jesus  is  making  and  baptizing  more  disciples  than  John 
is  making  and  baptizing,  than  to  suppose  the  contrast  to  be  between  the 
present  action  of  the  one  and  the  past  ministry  of  the  other, — as  if  the 
words  were,  '  Jesus  maketh  more  disciples  than  John  used  to  make.' 
Hence  we  regard  the  ministry  of  John  as  still  enduring  at  the  period 
to  which  this  verse  relates.  The  journey  into  Galilee  now  alluded  to 
is  not,  therefore,  that  recorded  in  Matt.  4 :  12,  which  was  taken  after 
the  imprisonment  of  John.  (See  further  the  note  on  chap.  6  :  1.)  On 
the  determination  of  this  question  rests  the  explanation  of  our  Lord's 
departure  from  Judaea.  If  John  had  now  been  delivered  up  to  his 
foes,  the  Evangelist's  meaning  might  be  that  Jesus  withdrew  from  a 
persecution  which  those  who  had  successfully  opposed  the  Baptist 
would  surely  raise  against  One  whose  success  was  even  greater.  But 
such  a  meaning  is  beset  with  difficulties,  for  there  would  be  something 
strange  and  unlike  the  style  of  this  Gospel  in  so  brief  an  allusion  to 
the  avoidance  by  our  Lord  of  open  hostility  at  this  early  period  of  His 
ministry ;  and  it  would  not  be  easy  to  see  why  the  Pharisees  should 
be  expressly  mentioned  and  not  '  the  Jews.'  If,  however,  we  take  the 
view  defended  above,  that  the  Baptist  was  still  pursuing  his  course, 
these  difficulties  disappear.  Not  to  escape  from  persecution,  but  to 
6 


82  JOHN  IV.  [4:  3. 

3  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disciples),  he  left  Judsea, 

put  an  end  to  comparisons  Avhich  (however  true  in  fact)  were  mis- 
chievously used,  Jesus  retired  from  the  land  in  which  John  was  teach- 
ing and  baptizing.  True,  He  must  increase  and  John  must  decrease  ; 
hut  the  hour  for  the  close  of  John's  preparatory  labors  had  not  yet 
come,  and  the  purposes  of  Jesus  Himself  would  be  best  furthered  by 
the  complete  accomplishment  of  the  Baptist's  mission.  Individuals 
might  be  removed  from  the  circle  of  John's  disciples  and  be  received 
by  Jesus  (see  chap.  1 :  37) ;  but  a  general  impression  of  this  kind 
could  not  be  made  until  a  certain  work  of  preparation  had  taken  place. 
For  His  own  sake,  therefore,  it  was  not  desii-able  that  this  preparation- 
work  should  pi^ematurely  close.  Again,  we  shall  thus  better  under- 
stand the  mention  of  the  Pharisees.  That  class  had  rigidly  and  sus- 
piciously inquired  into  John's  right  to  assume  the  position  of  a 
prophet,  and  the  report  which  they  now  heard  might  well  rouse  them 
to  renewed  action  in  their  character  of  defenders  of  the  faith  and  re- 
ligious practice  of  their  nation.  Any  such  action  on  their  part  could 
hardly  fail  at  this  stage  to  be  injurious,  even  if  it  were  directed  against 
John  and  not  against  Jesus  Himself,  But  there  was  no  reason  to  think 
that  their  opposition  would  be  limited  to  the  Baptist.  Jesus,  too, 
would  have  His  work  interrupted  by  their  embittered  feeling.  Not, 
therefore,  to  avoid  His  enemies,  but  to  transfer  His  labors  to  freer  and 
more  open  fields,  did  our  Lord  withdraw  from  Judasa  at  this  time. 
The  remarkable  indirectness  of  the  language  of  this  verse  is  explained 
by  the  writer's  wish  to  seize  the  very  moment  at  which  the  withdrawal 
from  Judea  became  necessary.  The  sojourn  of  Jesus  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  John's  sphere  of  action  brought  out  John's  distinct  confession 
of  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  his  Lord.  That  was  for  the  pre- 
sent enough  ;  and  the  sojourn  terminated  at  the  very  moment  Avhen  it 
threatened  to  be  the  means  of  injuring  the  Baptist's  work,  and  of  pre- 
cipitating the  open  conflict  between  Jesus  and  the  Jews.  It  seems 
most  natural  to  take  the  word  '  knew '  or  <  perceived '  as  referring,  not 
to  information  obtained,  but  to  supernatural  knowledge  (compare  chap. 
2:  24,  25).  Most  seemly,  therefore,  is  the  designation  of  Jesus  here 
as  'the  Lord' — a  rare  usage  with  John,  who  commonly  employs  the 
personal  name  Jesus.  Because  He  was  the  Lord,  not  man  only.  He 
discerned  the  first  stirrings  of  hostility  in  the  minds  of  the  Pharisees 
and  the  occasion  which  gave  them  birth.  Afterwards  the  name  Jesus 
occurs,  because  the  Evangelist  quotes  the  very  words  of  the  report, — • 
a  report  indeed  containing  an  incori-ect  statement,  set  right  in  the  pa- 
renthesis which  follows.  But  there  was  nothing  unnatural  in  the  error. 
Jesus  might  easily  be  represented  as  baptizing  (compare  chap.  3  :  22), 
because  His  disciples  could  only  have  acted  in  His  name  and  by  His 
authority.  The  Pharisees  could  not  know  why  He  should  abstain  from 
performing  the  act  Himself:  we  know  that  His  baptism  was  not  with 
water,  but  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  '  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not  yet 
given'   (chap.  7:  39).     Such,  then,  were   the  circumstances   amidst 


4 :  4,  5.]  JOHN  IV.  83 

4  and   departed    again    into   Galilee.      And   he   must 

5  needs   pass   through   Samaria.     So  he   cometh   to  a 

which  Jesus  '  left'  Judaea  and'retired  into  Galilee.  The  word  used  for 
'  left'  is  interesting,  and  confirms  our  interpretation.  It  means  literally 
'  let  go,'  '  let  alone  ; '  and  it  is  hardly  possible  not  to  feel  that  by  his 
use  of  it  the  Evangelist  would  direct  our  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Israel's  rejection  of  God's  mercy  was,  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Divine 
arrangements,  the  cause  why  it  was  itself  rejected,  and  the  other  na- 
tions of  the  world  called.  It  should  be  added  that  we  have  assumed 
throughout  that  ^Enon  and  Salim  were  situated  in  Judoea,  so  that  both 
Jesus  and  the  Baptist  were  at  this  time  in  the  same  region  of  the 
country.  If  Salim  was  near  Scythopolis,  in  Samaria  (which  seems 
very  unlikely),  the  argument  is  not  seriously  aflfected.  In  any  case, 
it  is  clear  that  for  the  time  Jesus  wished  to  remove  His  sphere  of  labor 
from  the  immediate  view  of  the  Pharisees  by  a  retirement  into 
Galilee. 

Ver.  4.  And  he  must  needs  go  through  Samaria.  The 
natural  route  from  Judaea  to  Galilee  lay  through  Samaria.  The  other 
route,  through  the  country  on  the  east  of  Jordan,  was  so  much  longer 
that  no  one  would  choose  it  unless  desirous  of  avoiding  Samaria. 
The  necessity  here  spoken  of,  therefore,  may  simply  have  reference  to 
geographical  po«ition,  and  to  the  present  urgent  motive  for  reaching 
Galilee  without  delay.  Still,  the  use  of  '  must'  in  this  Gospel  compels 
us  to  lay  an  emphasis  on  the  word,  and  to  interpret  it  as  denoting 
more  than  merely  usage  or  convenience.  If  the  Evangelist's  thought 
is  that  the  hostility  of  the  Pharisees  (partly  actually  existing,  partly 
foreseen)  made  it  necessary  for  the  Saviour  to  hasten  into  Galilee,  then 
he  would  have  us  understand  that  the  Jews  themselves  brought  about 
this  visit  to  the  hated  nation  of  the  Samaritans.  But  above  and  be- 
yond all  this,  there  seems  a  clear  intimation  of  the  truth  brought  be- 
fore us  in  ver.  34,  chap.  9 :  4,  etc. :  here,  as  always,  Jesus  acts  accord- 
ing to  His  knowledge  of  His  Father's  will. 

Ver.  5.  He  cometh  therefore  to  a  city  of  Samaria  'which 
is  called  Sychar.  '  From  the  hills  through  which  the  main  route 
of  Palestine  must  always  have  run  the  traveller  descends  into  a  wide 
plain,  the  widest  and  the  most  beautiful  of  the  plains  of  the  Ephraim- 
ite  mountains,  one  mass  of  corn  unbroken  by  boundary  or  hedge, 
from  the  midst  of  which  start  up  olive  trees,  themselves  unenclosed  as 
the  fields  in  which  they  stand.  Over  the  hills  which  close  the  north- 
ern end  of  this  plain,  far  away  in  the  distance,  is  caught  the  first 
glimpse  of  the  snowy  ridge  of  Hermon.  Its  western  side  is  bounded 
by  the  abutments  of  two  mountain  ranges,  running  from  west  to  east. 
These  ranges  are  Gerizim  and  Ebal ;  and  up  the  opening  between 
them,  not  seen  from  the  plain,  lies  the  modern  town  of  Nablus  ,  .  .  the 
most  beautiful,  perhaps  it  might  be  said  the  only  very  beautiful  spot 
in  central  Palestine.'  *     Nablus  is  a  corruption  of  Neapolis,  the  name 

*  Stanley,  Shiai  aud  PidesUne,  pp.  233,  234. 


84  JOHN  IV.  [4 :  5. 

city  of  Samaria,  called  Sychar,  near  to  the  parcel  of 

given  by  the  Romans  to  the  '  new  city '  built  nearly  on  the  site  of  the 
ancient  Shechem,  The  city  which  gave  its  name  to  this  district  of  the 
Holy  Land,  Samaria,  distant  about  six  miles,  had  recently  been  rebuilt 
in  a  style  of  great  magnificence  by  Herod  the  Great,  who  gave  it  the 
name  of  Sebaste.  But,  partly  through  the  prestige  of  its  antiquity 
and  famous  history,  and  partly  through  the  power  of  religious  associa- 
tions, Shechem  was  pre-eminently  the  city  of  Samaria.  It  lay,  as  has 
been  said,  at  the  foot  of  Mount  Gerizim,  on  the  summit  of  which  was 
the  temple  of  the  Samaritans,  the  stronghold  of  their  worship  for 
nearly  three  hundred  years.  It  is  impossible  here  to  do  more  than 
trace  the  main  outlines  of  the  history  of  the  Samaritan  people.  Their 
origin  has  in  modern  times  been  a  subject  of  warm  controversy.  The 
narrative  of  2  Kings  25:  12  certainly  seems  to  imply  that  all  the  in- 
habitants of  the  country  were  carried  away  to  '  Halah  and  Habor  and 
the  cities  of  the  Medes '  (2  Kings  17:  6):  Josephus  also  speaks  of 
the  transplanting  of  all  the  people.  But,  apart  from  the  improbability 
that  such  a  wholesale  deportation  would  be  made,  we  find  both  in 
Scripture  (2  Chron.  34 :  9,  and  perhaps  30 :  1,5,  10)  and  also  in  Jose- 
phus intimations  that  some  few  at  least  of  the  inhabitants  remained, 
after  the  land  had  been  colonized  by  settlers  from  Cuthah  and  other 
cities  of  Assyria.  In  the  manner  related  in  2  Kings  17  these  colonists 
were  led  to  mingle  a  worship  of  Jehovah  as  the  tutelary  Deity  of  their 
new  country  with  the  idolatry  brought  with  them  from  their  native 
cities.  What  we  read  of  their  history  at  a  later  date  is  in  exact  accord 
with  the  mixed  character  of  their  race  and  their  worship.  They  re- 
ferred their  own  origin  only  to  Assyria  (Ezra  4:  2),  yet  they  were 
desirous  of  fraternizing  with  the  Jews  in  their  work  of  rebuilding  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem ;  and,  when  finally  repulsed  by  the  Jews  and 
defeated  in  their  attempts  to  injure  and  frustrate  their  work,  they 
built  (b.  c.  409)  a  rival  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim  after  the  model  of 
that  in  Jerusalem,  taking  as  their  first  high  priest  one  whom  Nehe- 
miah  had  expelled  (Neh.  13:  28).  From  this  time  they  seem  to  have 
maintained  a  system  of  worship  modelled  on  that  of  the  Jews,  their 
older  idolatry  being,  as  far  as  we  can  judge,  entirely  renounced.  Of 
the  Scriptures  the  Samaritans  received  one  portion  only,  the  Penta- 
teuch  ;  but  for  this  they  professed  peculiar  reverence.  A  comparison 
of  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  with  that  of  the  Hebrew  Bible  shows 
that  many  alterations  had  been  introduced  into  the  text  by  the  Samar- 
itans, but  at  the  same  time  that  these  had  only  been  made  for  the  pur- 
pose of  authenticating  their  own  mode  of  worship  and  of  maintaining 
the  honor  of  their  sacred  places.  This  partial  agreement,  however, 
between  the  religious  beliefs  of  the  two  peoples,  so  far  from  prevent- 
ing, had  really  led  to  the  most  determined  hostility  between  them.  To 
the  Jew,  a  man  of  purely  Gentile  descent  and  a  man  of  mixed  race 
were  equally  Gentiles ;  and  an  approximation  to  Jewish  belief  and 
modes  of  worship  gave  no  claim  of  brotherhood  with  Jews.     Hebrew 


i !  6.]  JOHN  IV.  85 

6  ground   that    Jacob   gave   to   his   son   Joseph :    and 

literature  is  full  of  strangely  varying  statements  in  regard  to  the 
Cuthim  (as  they  are  called), — statements  which  probably  reflect  the 
relations  subsisting  between  the  nations  at  different  periods  (see 
Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  iii.  1117,  1118).  In  the  time  of  our 
Lord  the  temple  on  Mount  Gerizim  had  long  been  in  ruins,  but  both 
the  mount  and  the  city  at  its  foot  had  retained  their  sacred  character; 
and  it  was  here  that  the  true  Samaritan  practices  and  traditions  had 
their  strongest  hold  on  the  people.  The  slight  sketch  which  we  have 
been  able  to  give  of  the  history  of  this  people  will  be  sufficient  to  show 
how  singular  was  their  situation.  The  ancient  writings  of  the  Jews 
themselves  deal  with  Samaritans  now  as  with  heathen,  now  as  with 
men  belonging  to  the  stock  of  Israel ;  and  the  narrative  of  this  chap- 
ter places  them  in  the  same  position — a  position  not  wholly  Gentile, 
but  intermediate  between  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  world.  It  has 
been  commonly  assumed  that  the  '  city  called  Sychar'  is  identical  with 
Shechem,  and  the  chief  subject  of  controversy  has  been  the  motive  for 
the  change  of  name.  Whilst  some  have  regarded  the  alteration  as  a 
mere  error  of  pronunciation,  most  have  ascribed  it  to  Jewish  preju- 
dice, interpreting  Sychar  as  '  drunkard '  or  '  falsehood : '  others, 
again,  have  considered  the  word  identical  with  a  well  Sokhar  men- 
tioned in  the  Talmud.  It  seems  more  probable,  however,  that  Sychar 
is  a  village  still  known  by  a  name  substantially  the  same  (El-Askar), 
situated  about  two  miles  to  the  east  of  the  present  town  of  Nablds. 
This  village  is  nearer  than  Shechem  can  have  been  to  the  well  which 
bore  the  name  of  Jacob ;  and  it  is  much  more  likely  that  the  Evangel- 
ist would  pause  to  describe  the  position  of  such  a  place  than  that  of 
the  ancient  city  of  Shechem. — Near  to  the  parcel  of  ground  that 
Jacob  gave  to  his  son  Joseph.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  in 
speaking  of  Jacob's  gift  to  his  son  Joseph,  John  refers  to  Gen.  48:  22, 

*  I  have  given  thee  one  portion  above  thy  brethren,' — whatever  mean- 
ing may  be  attached  to  the  last  words  of  that  verse.  The  Hebrew 
word  here  rendered  '  portion '  is  identical  with  the  name  Shechem. 
At  Shechem,  therefore,  were  the  bones  of  Joseph  buried  (Josh.  2-1 : 
32),  and  the  city  and  surrounding  country  '  became  the  inheritance  of 
the  children  of  Joseph.' 

Yer.  6.  Notv  there  Tvas  a  fountain  there,  Jacob's  foun- 
tain. The  distinction  between  the  natural  spring  and  the  artificial 
■well  is  usually  maintained  with  great  care  in  the  language  of  Scrip- 
ture. Now  and  then,  however  (as  is  very  natural),  a  well,  fed  as  it  is 
by  springs,  is  itself  called  a  spring  or  fountain.-  Thus  '  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  found*  Hagar  '  by  a  fountain  of  water  in  the  wilderness  ' 
(Gen.  16  :  7),  and  '  the  well  was  called  Beer-lahai-roi '  (ver.  14)  ;  and 
in  the  narrative  of  Gen.  24,  wherein  the  Authorized  Version  we  find 

*  weir  three  times  (in  vers.  11,  13,  16),  the  original  has  first  loell,  then 
spring  or  fountain  twice.  The  country  round  Shechem  was  a  place  of  foun- 
tains and  depths  that  spring  out  in  valley  and  hill '  (Deut.  8:7);  but 


JOHN  IV.  [4:  6. 


Jacob's   ^  well    was    there.      Jesus    therefore,   being 
wearied  with  his  journey,  sat  ^  thus  by  the  ^  well.     It 

1  Gr.  spring ;  and  so  in  ver.  14  ,  but  not  in  vers.  11, 12.         2  Qr,  as  he  was. 

it  is  not  of  such  natural  springs  that  we  must  here  think.  What  in 
this  verse  is  called  a  fountain  is  a  '  well '  in  vers.  11  and  12.  Yet  it 
may  be  worth  noticing  that  the  latter  name  is  used  by  the  woman  of 
Samaria:  to  the  Evangelist  the  well  is  a  '  fountain,'  and  his  name  im- 
plies far  deeper  and  richer  thoughts  than  hers.  An  almost  continu- 
ous tradition  fixes  beyond  doubt  the  position  of  this  well,  which  lies 
very  near  the  road  by  which  our  Lord  would  be  travelling  from 
Judaea  to  Galilee;  and  amongst  the  inhabitants  of  the  adjoining 
towns  it  is  still  known  as  the  well  of  Jacob  or  the  fountain  of  Jacob.* 
When  visited  by  Maundrell  two  hundred  years  ago  the  well  was 
more  than  100  feet  deep,  but  the  accumulation  of  rubbish  has  dimin- 
ished the  depth  to  75  feet :  the  bore  is  9  or  10  feet  wide.  That  Jacob 
(if  indeed  this  patriarch's  name  was  rightly  given  to  the  well,  and 
there  is  no  reason  for  questioning  the  tradition)  should  have  sunk  this 
well,  excavated  out  of  the  solid  rock,  in  the  immediate  neighborhood 
of  abundant  springs,  is  a  sti-iking  proof  of  the  insecurity  of  his  po- 
sition in  the  '  land  of  promise.'  and  of  his  precarious  relations  with 
the  people  of  the  country. — Jesus  therefore,  being  wearied 
of  his  journey,  sat  thus  by  the  fountain.  Shechem  was  one  of 
the  main  halting-places  on  the  route  from  Jerusalem  to  Galilee.  Turn- 
ing off  a  little  from  the  road,  Jesus  reached  the  well,  and  (now  alone, 
because  His  disciples  had  gone  into  Sychar  tobuy  provisions)  wearied 
with  a  long  day's  travel  He  '  sat  thus  ' — sat,  wearied  as  He  was — '  by 
the  fountain,'  or  on  the  low  wall  built  around  the  well. — It  "was 
about  the  sixth  hour.  As  in  the  other  passages  in  which  John 
mentions  the  '  hour,'  there  has  been  great  difference  of  opinion  re- 
specting the  time  intended.  If  the  ordinary  reckoning  be  adopted,  as 
in  the  other  Gospels,  the  sixth  hour  would  fall  in  the  morning,  a  little 
before  noon.  But  for  the  reasons  assigned  in  the  note  on  chap.  1 :  39, 
it  seems  much  more  probable  that  a  different  computation  is  followed 
here,  in  which,  as  among  ourselves,  the  hour  is  of  fixed  length  (not  a 
twelfth  part  of  the  variable  interval  between  sunrise  and  sunset),  and 
the  time  is  reckoned  from  midnight  and  noon.  By  'sixth  hour,'  there- 
fore, according  to  the  usage  of  the  ancients,  we  must  understand 
either  the  hour  between  5  and  6  A.  M.  or  the  hour  between  5  and  6 
p.  M.  On  the  whole,  the  latter  seems  more  probable.  If  our  Lord's 
journey  through  Samaria   took   place  in  the  middle  of  December  (see 

*['  This  is  one  of  the  few  places  in  the  Holy  Land  which  can  be  identified  with  cer- 
tainty. Christians,  Jews,  Mohammedans,  Samaritans,  all  agree  in  regard  to  the  site 
of  Jacob's  well.  Here  our  blessed  Lord,  weary  of  travel,  but  not  of  His  work  of  sav- 
ing souls,  offered  to  a  poor  woman  (the  Samaritan  Magdalena)  the  living  water  of 
eternal  life,  and  revealed  to  her  the  sublime  truth  of  the  true  spiritual  worship  of 
God,  who  is  all  pervading,  omnipresent  Spirit.' — SchafF.  DLctionai-y  of  the  Bible,  p.  414,] 


4:  7-9.]  JOHN  IV.  87 

7  was  about  the  sixth  hour.     There  cometh  a  woman 
of  Samaria   to   draw  water  :  Jesus   saith    unto  her, 

8  Give   me   to   drink.      For   his  disciples   were   gone 

9  away  into  the  city  to   buy   food.      The   Samaritan 
woman   therefore  saith  unto    him,    How  is   it  that 

the  note  on  ver.  35),  5  p.  m.  would  be  about  the  time  of  sunset,  and 
the  evening  twilight  would  last  until  about  half-past  6.  This  hour  was 
the  ordinary  time  at  which  women  came  forth  to  draw  water  at  the 
public  wells.  No  difficulty  need  be  felt  on  account  of  the  lateness  of 
the  hour,  for  very  little  time  is  really  required  for  all  that  is  here  re- 
lated up  to  the  38th  verse  (comp.  Mark  1  :   32  ;  Luke  4:  40.) 

Ver.  7.  There  cometh  a  vroman  of  Samaria  to  dra-w  -wa- 
ter. By  Samaria  here  we  are  of  course  to  understand  the  country 
not  the  city  of  Samaria,  The  woman  belonged  to  Sychar ;  by  race 
and  religion  she  was  a  Samaritan,  and  it  is  to  this  fact,  as  is  shown  by 
the  preposition  employed  in  the  original,  that  the  evangelist  would  di- 
rect our  special  attention.  It  was  very  natural  that  she  should  come 
at  this  time  to  draw  water  at  the  well;  but  from  the  narrative  that 
follows  it  seems  probable  that  something  more  than  the  excellence  of 
the  water  drew  her  to  it  day  by  day.  One  so  strongly  imbued  with 
the  ancient  traditions  of  her  countrymen  could  not  but  turn  with 
deepest  interest  to  'Jacob's  well.' 

Vers.  7.  8.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Give  me  to  drink.  (For 
his  disciples -were  gone  a-way  unto  the  city  to  buy  food.) 
The  departure  of  the  disciples  had  left  Jesus  thus  dependent  on  the 
woman's  kindness ;  for  they  had  left  no  vessel  by  which  the  water 
could  be  drawn  from  the  deep  well.  It  has  been  conjectured  that  the 
recorder  of  this  narrative  had  not  gone  on  to  Sychar  with  his  fellow- 
disciples,  but  himself  heard  the  Savior's  conversation  with  the  Samar- 
itan woman.  The  conjecture  is  most  improbable,  if  not  altogether 
contrary  to  the  statement  of  the  Evangelist.  We  cannot  doubt  that  it 
was  from  our  Lord's  own  lips  that  the  beloved  disciple  received  the 
whole  account. 

Ver.  9.  The  Samaritan  woman  therefore  saith  unto  him, 
How^  is  it  that  thou,  being  a  Jew,  askest  drink  of  me,  w^ho 
am  a  Samaritan  woman  ?  for  Jew^s  have  no  dealings  w^ith 
Samaritans.  It  is  evident  that  Jesus  was  at  once  recognized  as  a 
Jew,  probably  through  some  diflFerence  of  accent,  or  language,  or  dress. 
We  can  hardly  suppose  that  the  woman  was  really  surprised  at  the  re- 
quest preferred,  so  natural  from  the  lips  of  a  weary  traveler  (comp. 
Gen.  24  :  17).  We  may  rather  imagine  her  as  hastening  to  procure 
what  was  asked  for,  whilst  not  failing  to  point  out  how  inconsistent 
with  Jewish  principles  it  was  to  ask  even  for  such  a  favor  as  this.  As 
has  been  said  above,  the  maxims  of  the  Jews  respecting  intercourse 
with  the  Samaritan  people  varied  much  at  different  times,  and  it  is  not 
easy  to  say  what  rules  prevailed  at  the  period  with  which  we  are  here 


88  JOHN  IV.  [4:  10. 

thou,  being  a  Jew,  askest  drink  of  me,  which  am  a 
Samaritan  woman  ?  ^  (For  Jews  have  no  dealings 
10  with  Samaritans.)  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto 
her,  If  thou  knewest  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it  is 
that  saith  unto  thee.  Give  me  to  drink  ;  thou  wouldest 
have   asked  of  him,  and  he  would   have  given  thee 

iSome  ancient  authorities  omit  For  Jews  have  no  dealings  with  Satnarilans. 


concerned.  One  precept  of  the  Talmud  (quoted  in  Smithes  Die.  of  the 
Bible  iii.  1117)  approves  their  mode  of  preparing  the  flesh  of  animals  ; 
others  commend  their  unleavened  bread,  their  cheese,  and  finally  all 
their  food.  Elsewhere,  however,  we  find  restrictions  ;  and  the  wine, 
vinegar,  etc.,  of  the  Samaritans  are  forbidden  to  every  Israelite,  their 
country  only  with  its  roads  and  its  other  products  being  regarded  as 
clean.  This  narrative  shows  that  it  was  held  lawful  to  buy  food  in  a 
Samaritan  town,  so  that  the  words  of  this  verse  must  probably  be  un- 
derstood to  mean  that  Jews  avoided  all  familiar  intercourse  with  the 
alien  people,  sought  and  expected  no  favors  at  their  hands.  It  is 
usually  assumed  that  the  last  sentence  is  inserted  by  the  Evangelist  in 
the  interest  of  Gentile  readers.  It  may  be  so,  as  such  short  paren- 
thetical explanations  are  certainly  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  this  Gos- 
pel. There  seems,  however,  no  sufficient  reason  for  removing  the 
clause  from  the  woman's  answer.  The  repetition  of  the  well-known 
maxim  gives  a  piquant  emphasis  to  her  words,  bringing  out  with  sharp 
distinctness  the  contrast  between  the  principles  of  the  countrymen  of 
Jesus  and  the  request  which  necessity  had  extorted.  The  use  of  the 
present  tense  (' have  no  dealings')  adds  some  support  to  this  view  ; 
and  one  can  hardly  avoid  the  conviction  that,  had  John  himself  given 
such  an  explanation,  he  would  have  so  expressed  himself  as  to  avoid 
all  appearance  of  discordance  with  his  statement  in  ver.  8, 

Ver.  10.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  her,  If  thou 
knewest  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it  is  that  saith  to  thee, 
Give  me  to  drink  ;  thou  wouldst  have  asked  of  him,  and 
he  would  have  given  thee  living  water.  We  may  well  believe 
that  there  was  something  in  the  manner  of  Jesus,  when  uttering  His 
first  words,  that  invited  conversation,  and  was  intended  to  lead  the 
woman  to  inquiry.  This  point  gained.  His  next  words  could  but  cause 
surprise  and  excite  remark.  Her  answer  had  told  of  her  recognition 
of  Him  as  a  Jew :  His  reply  declares  her  ignorance  of  Him  and  what 
He  was  able  to  give.  The  '  gift  of  God '  is  probably  not  different  from 
the  *  living  water '  afterwards  mentioned.  John  himself  gives  an  ex- 
planation cff  the  latter  in  chap.  7  :  39.  and  his  interpretation  must  be 
applied  here  also.  ^  Living  water,'  then  denotes  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  was  pre-eminently  the  promised  gift  of  the  Father  (see 
especially  Isa.  44  ;  Joel  2),  beautifully  and  most  aptly  symbolized  by 
the  fresh  springing  water,  which  wherever  it  comes  makes  the  desert 


4:  11,  12].  JOHN  IV.  89 

11  living  water.  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  ^  Sir, 
thou  hast  nothing  to  draw  with,  and  the  well  is 
deep :  from  whence  then  hast  thou  that  living  water  ? 

12  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Jacob,  which  gave 
us  the  well,  and  drank  thereof  himself,  and  his  sons 

lOr  Lord. 

rejoice,  and  everything  live  (Ezek.  47  :  9).  This  was  also  the  especial 
giil  of  the  Son  (see  chap.  1  :  43),  in  whom  the  promises  of  the  Father 
are  fulfilled  (2  Cor.  1 :  20).  Had  the  woman  known  God's  gift,  known 
also  that  the  Dispenser  of  this  gift  stood  before  her,  she  would  have 
been  the  petitioner,  and  He,  with  no  delay  and  without  upbraiding, 
would  have  given  her  living  water. 

Yer.  11.  She  said  unto  him,  Sir,  thou  hast  nothing  to 
dra-w  -with,  and  the  -well  is  deep  :  from  •wrhence  then  hast 
thou  that  living  -water?  In  the  answer  of  Jesus  there  was  much 
to  cause  surprise,  especially  in  the  emphatic  reference  to  Himself;  but 
there  was  nothing  in  the  actual  terms  used  that  compelled  the  hearer 
to  seek  for  a  figurative  meaning.  '  Living  water '  was  a  phrase  in  or- 
dinary use  in  speaking  of  the  fresh  bubbling  spring  or  the  flowing 
brook.  '  Isaac's  servants  digged  in  the  valley  and  found  there  a  spring 
of  living  water'  (Gen.  26  :  I'J,  margin).  "Wherever  running  water  is 
spoken  of  in  the  ceremonial  law,  the  same  expression  is  used.  Hence 
nothing  more  than  the  fresh  spring  that  supplied  the  well  might  at 
first  be  presented  to  the  woman's  mind,  and  that  this  precious  gift 
came  of  the  Divine  bounty  would  be  no  unfamiliar  thought.  Though, 
as  a  Samaritan,  she  might  know  little  or  nothing  of  God's  promise  of 
His  Spirit  under  this  very  emblem,  or  of  Jeremiah's  comparison  of 
God  Himself  to  a  fountain  of  living  waters  (Jer  2  :  13),  yet  reflection 
would  suggest  some  such  meaning.  At  present,  however,  she  answers 
without  reflection,  and  perceives  no  higher  promise  than  that  of  the 
Creator's  bounty,  attended  without  the  use  of  ordinary  means. 

Ver.  12.  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Jacob,  "who 
gave  us  the  -well,  and  drank  thereof  himself,  and  his  sons, 
and  his  cattle  ?  It  was  from  Joseph  that  the  Samaritans  were 
wont  to  claim  descent ;  all  the  district  around  belonged  to  his  chil- 
dren. But  Jacob  here  receives  special  mention  as  the  giver  of  the 
well.  The  well  was  his  ;  he  drank  of  it  himself.  Again  the  thought 
is  forced  upon  us,  that  the  Samaritan  woman  had  sought  this  well 
partly  on  account  of  its  connection  with  the  fathers  of  her  people. 
The  feeling  may  have  been  tinged  with  superstition,  but  it  was  hon- 
orable in  itself.  The  first  part  of  her  answer  (ver.  11)  showed  how 
limited  the  range  of  the  woman's  thoughts  still  was  :  in  the  words  of 
this  verse  we  see  her  dawning  conviction  of  the  Stranger's  greatness, 
and  the  impression  made  upon  her  by  His  manner  and  His  words. 


90  JOHN  IV.  [4:  13-15. 

13  and  his  cattle  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  her, 
Every  one  that  drinketh  of  this  water   shall    thirst 

14  again  :  but  whosoever  drinketh  of  the  water  that  I 
shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst ;  but  the  water  that 
I  shall  give  him  shall  become  in  him  a  well  of  water, 

15  springing  up  unto  eternal  life.  The  w^oman  saith 
unto  him,  ^  Sir,  give  me   this   water,  that  I  thirst  not 

1  Or,  Lord. 

Ver.  13.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  her,  Every  one 
that  drinketh  of  this  -water  shall  thirst  again.  The  question 
receives  no  direct  reply :  the  greatness  of  the  Giver  must  be  learnt 
from  the  quality  of  the  gift.  Even  the  living  water  from  Jacob's  well 
has  no  power  to  prevent  the  return  to  thirst. 

Yer.  14.  But  whosoever  hath  drunk  of  the  water  that  I 
shall  give  him  shall  never  thirst ;  but  the  vrater  that  I 
shall  give  him  shall  become  in  him  a  fountain  of  springing 
w^ater,  unto  eternal  life.  The  living  water  of  which  Jesus  speaks 
becomes  in  him  who  hath  drunk  of  it  a  perennial  fountain, — a  foun- 
tain of  water  that  is  ever  springing  up  in  freshness  and  life,  of  water 
that  not  only  is  itself  living,  but  that  brings  and  gives  eternal  life.  As 
before,  this  '  water '  is  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  whole  thought  closely 
approaches  that  of  chap  7  :  38.  There  the  promise  is,  that  out  of  him 
who  comes  unto  Jesus  that  he  may  drink,  who  believes  in  Jesus,  there 
shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water  ;  '  And  this  spake  He  of  the  Spirit.' 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  special  gift  of  Jesus ;  and,  reciprocally,  it  is 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  that  the  believer  remains  united  to  his  Lord 
in  an  abiding  fellowship  (chap.  16:  14,  15),  and  that  Jesus  lives  in 
him  (chap.  17  :  23).  These  truths  of  the  later  discourses  are  really 
present  here  :  Jesus,  who  first  gives  the  living  water,  becomes  in  him 
that  hath  received  it  the  fountain  which  supplies  the  same  stream  of 
life  forever.  The  end  is  life  eternal,  not  attained  in  the  remote  future, 
but  begun  and  actually  present  in  every  one  who  has  received  the 
water  that  Jesus  gives  ;  for  all  those  to  whom  the  Spirit  is  given  ex- 
perience that  unity  with  God  which  is  eternal  life  (see  the  note  on 
chap.  3:   14.) 

Yer.  15.  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  Sir,  give  me  this 
water,  that  I  thirst  not,  neither  come  all  the  w^ay  hither  to 
draTV.  These  are  words  of  simple  earnestness.  In  the  mysterious 
words  of  the  Jewish  traveler  one  thing  was  plain, — instead  .of  the 
water  she  came  to  draw,  water  was  oflfered  that  would  satisfy  thirst 
now  and  for  ever.  Could  she  gain  this  gift,  one  would  no  longer  need 
to  traverse  the  distance  from  Sychar  to  Jacob's  well.  Though  much 
nearer  than  Shechem  El-Askar  is  perhaps  three-quarters  of  a  mile 
from  the  well.  The  later  narrative  makes  it  impossible  for  us  to  re- 
gard this  answer  as  one  either  of  flippancy  or  of  dulness  of  spiritual 


4:  16-19.]  JOHN  IV.  91 

16  neither   come   all  the   way  hither   to  draw.      Jesus 
saith  unto  her,  Go,  call  thy  husband,  and  come  hith- 

17  er.     The  woman    answered   and  said    unto    him,    I 
have  no  husband.     Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Thou  saidst 

18  well,  I  have  no  husband :  for  thou  hast  had  five  hus- 
bands ;  and  he  whom  thou  now  hast  is  not  thy  hus- 

19  band :  this  hast  thou  said  truly.     The  woman  saith 

perception.  It  is  in  every  way  more  probable  and  true  to  nature  to 
consider  it  as  the  expression  of  a  bewildered  mind  eager  to  receive 
such  a  gift  as  has  been  offered,  little  as  she  could  comprehend  of  what 
nature  the  gift  could  be.  If  we  are  right  in  the  conjecture  that  other 
than  common  motives  brought  her  to  the  well  (see  the  note  on  ver.  12), 
it  is  still  easier  to  understand  her  reply.  With  this  verse  comp.  chap. 
6:  34. 

Ver.  16.  He  saith  unto  her,  Go,  call  thy  husband,  and 
come  hither.  The  promise  .Jesus  has  given  is  one  of  satisfaction, 
— a  promise,  therefore,  which  cannot  be  understood  or  fulfilled  till  the 
want  has  been  clearly  apprehended  and  felt.  These  sudden  words 
are  designed  to  produce  this  effect.  He  who  ever  *  discerned  what  was 
in  the  man '  with  whom  he  spoke,  well  knew  what  answer  His  words 
would  call  forth. — Her  past  life  and  her  present  state  proclaimed  guilt 
and  disappointment,  carnality  and  wretchedness ;  all  this  she  must 
recognize  aud  feel  before  His  gift  can  be  hers. 

Ver.  17.  The  -woman  ansvrered  and  said,  I  have  no  hus- 
band. The  effect  is  produced.  The  woman's  words  are  a  genuine 
confession, — an  acknowledgment,  perhaps  of  wretchedness,  certainly 
of  guilt. — Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Thou  hast  -well  said,  I  have 
no  husband.  He  accepts  the  truthfulness  of  her  statement,  but 
shows  her  how  fully  her  life  is  known  to  Him.  In  this  answer  the  em- 
phasis lies  on  '  husband ;^  the  woman's  words  are  repeated  with  their 
order  changed  'I  have  no  husband.'  'Well  saidst  th.o\x,  Husband  1 
have  not.' 

Ver.  18.  For  thou  hast  bad  five  husbands.  The  'five'  were 
no  doubt  lawful  husbands,  from  whom  she  had  been  separated  either 
by  death  or  by  divorce.  And  he -whom  thou  noTV  hast  is  not 
thy  husband :  this  thou  hast  said  truly.  In  contrast  with 
the  lawful  marriages  is  set  the  present  unlawful  union  with  one  who 
was  no  husband.  Her  life  was  sinful :  in  what  degree  we  cannot  learn 
from  this  brief  statement.  An  age  in  which  divorce  was  freely  allowed 
cannot  be  judged  by  the  same  rules  as  one  of  stricter  principles. 
Whatever  may  have  led  her  to  an  evil  life,  it  is  plain  that  her  heart 
was  not  yet  hardened. 

Ver.  1 9.  The  woman  saith  unto  him,  Sir,  I  perceive  that 
thou  art  a  prophet.  Nothing  can  be  more  misleading  than  the  idea 
that  she  is  seeking  to  turn  the  conversation  from  an  unwelcome  sub- 


92  JOHN  IV.  [4:  20,21. 

unto  him,  ^Sir,  I  perceive  that  thou   art  a   prophet. 

20  Our   fathers  worshipped   in   this  mountain ;    and  ye 
say,  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the  place  where  men  ought 

21  to  worship.     Jesus   saith    unto  her,  Woman,  believe 
me,  the  hour  cometh,  when  neither  in  this  mountain, 

lOr  Lord. 

ject,  or  to  lead  it  to  other  topics  than  herself.  Her  answer  is  rather  a 
fresh  illustration  of  her  inquiring  and  earnest  character,  notwith- 
standing all  the  sinfulness  of  her  life.  When  her  delighted  wonder 
has  found  expression  in  her  immediate  acknowledgment,  '  Sir,  I  be- 
hold that  thon  art  a  prophet,'  she  eagerly  lays  before  Him  a  question 
which  to  her  was  of  all  questions  the  most  important. 

Ver.  20.  Our  fathers  -worshipped  in  this  mountain  ;  and 
ye  say,  that  in  Jerusalem  is  the  place  -where  men  must 
■worship.  '  This  mountain  '  is  of  course  Gerizim,  near  the  foot  of 
which  they  were  standing.  "With  this  mountain  was  connected,  as  she 
believed,  all  the  religious  history  of  her  nation  ;  for  in  the  very 
Scriptures  which  the  Samaritans  possessed  (the  Pentateuch)  the  name 
of  Gerizim  had  been  inserted  in  the  place  of  the  holy  city  of  the  Jews. 
She  could  point  to  the  sacred  spot  on  which  their  temple  had  stood, 
then  and  in  all  succeeding  ages  up  to  our  own  time  pre-eminently  '  holy 
ground.'  Her  question  was  not  prompted  by  mere  curiosity  or  an  in- 
terest in  the  settlement  of  an  ancient  controversy.  It  was  a  question 
of  life  and  death  to  her.  The  claim  of  the  Jews  was  exclusive.  Not 
only 'ought'  men  to  worship  in  Jerusalem,  but  that  was  the  place 
•where  men  must  worship, — the  only  true  holy  place.  One  cannot  but 
think  that  their  confident  and  consistent  maintenance  of  this  first 
princiiDle  had  long  disturbed  her  mind  ;  and  when  she  saw  in  the 
Stranger  one  who  could  declare  God's  will,  she  eagerly  sought  for  the 
resolution  of  her  doubt.  As  long  as  she  knew  not  with  certainty 
where  was  God's  true  altar,  she  had  no  means  of  satisfying  her  relig- 
ious wants.  That  her  national  pride  had  not  stifled  every  hesitation 
on  such  a  point  as  this  plainly  attests  her  earnestness.  It  is  no  ordi- 
nary candor  that  can  look  on  the  supremacy  of  Gerizim  or  Jerusalem 
as  an  open  question.  Her  words  imply  a  willingness  to  accept  the 
revelation  of  the  truth,  whatever  it  may  be,  if  only  she  can  learn 
where  with  acceptance  she  may  appear  before  God. 

Ver.  21.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Believe  me,  "woman,  an 
hour  cometh,  -when  neither  in  this  mountain,  nor  in  Jeru- 
salem, shall  ye  -worship  the  Father.  The  woman  can  hardly 
have  doubted  that  the  decision  of  a  Jewish  prophet  would  be  in  favor 
of  Jerusalem,  but  the  answer  of  .Jesus  sets  aside  all  ideas  of  sanctity 
of  place.  With  neither  of  these  two  most  hallowed  spots  shall  the 
thought  of  true  worship  be  bound  up.  In  saying  '  an  hour  cometh,' 
Jesus  shows  that  He  is  not  repeating  a  truth  belonging  to  the  revela- 


4:  22.]  JOHN  IV.  93 

22  nor  in  Jerusalem,  shall  ye  worship  the  Father.  Ye 
worship  that  which  ye  know  not :  we  worship  that 
which  we  know :    for   salvation    is  from   the  Jews. 

tion  of  the  past,  but  is  proclaiming  a  new  order  of  things.  Yet  the 
chief  characteristic  of  the  new  order  is,  after  all,  not  the  equality  of 
places  where  men  worship,  but  the  clear  knowledge  of  the  Being  to 
whom  worship  is  paid  :  from  this  the  former  flows.  Samaritans  shall 
offer  worship  in  spite  of  Jewish  exclusiveness,  for  they  shall  worship 
the  Father.  'Israel  is  my  son,  even  my  first-born,'  were  God's 
words  to  Pharaoh  ;  but  now  He  offers  the  name  to  all,  and  the  words 
of  Jesus  imply  the  abolition  of  every  distinction,  not  of  place  only 
but  of  nation,  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  for  the  purpose  of  true 
worship. 

Ver.  22.  Ye  worship  that  which  ye  know  not :  we  wor- 
ship that  which  we  know.  The  two  questions  at  issue  between 
Jews  and  Samaritans  were  those  of  holy  place  and  holy  Scripture. 
The  former,  though  of  far  inferior  importance  (as  the  Jews  themselves 
were  by  their  'dispersion'  being  gradually  trained  to  know),  was  the 
more  easily  seized  upon  by  national  prejudice  and  zeal.  Of  this  ques- 
tion Jesus  has  spoken.  He  passes  on  immediately  to  the  other,  which 
the  woman  had  not  raised,  but  which  was  of  vital  moment.  The  Sa- 
maritans did  really  worship  God,— there  is  no  slur  cast  on  the  intention 
and  aim  of  their  worship  ;  their  error  consisted  in  clinging  to  an  imper- 
fect revelation  of  Him,  receiving  Moses  but  rejecting  the  prophets.  Hat- 
ing and  avoiding  Jews,  they  cut  themselves  off  from  the  training  given 
by  God  to  that  people  through  whom  His  final  purposes  were  to  be  made 
known  to  the  world.  It  was  the  essential  characteristic  of  the  whole  of 
Jewish  history  and  prophecy  that  it  gradually  led  up  to  the  Messiah ; 
that  the  successive  prophets  made  known  with  increasing  clearness 
the  nature  of  His  kingdom  ;  and  that  every  one  who  could  understand 
their  word  saw  that  the  Divine  purpose  to  save  the  world  was  to  be 
accomplished  through  One  arising  out  of  Israel.  He  who  knew  not 
God  as  ^Aj<s  revealing  and  giving  salvation  did  not  really  know  him. 
Every  Jew  who  truly  received  and  understood  the  oracles  of  God  com- 
mitted to  his  trust  (Rom.  3:2)  might  be  said  to  '  know  '  the  object  of 
his  worship  ;  and  it  is  because  our  Lord  is  speaking  of  such  know- 
ledge,— knowledge  respecting  God  given  by  the  Scriptures  which  the 
Jews  possessed, — that  He  says  '  that  which  we  know,'  not  '  Him  whom 
we  know.'  The  Samaritans  then  worshipped  that  which  they  knew 
not, — in  this  more  enlightened  than  the  Athenians  who  built  an  altar 
to  an  unknown  God,  but  inferior  even  to  those  of  Israel  who  had  '  a 
zeal  of  God  but  not  according  to  knowledge,'  and  standing  far  below 
those  meant  by  our  Lord  when  He  says  ^  we  worship,'  — we,  namely, 
who  have  really  appropriated  Israel's  inheritance  of  truth  and  hope 
— Because  the  Salvation  is  of  the  Jew^s.  '  The  Salvation '  i3 
that  foretold  in  Scripture,  and  long  waited  for.  The  words  are  those 
of  Jesus ;  but,  remembered  and  quoted  as  they  are  by  the  Evangelist, 


94  JOHN  IV.  [4:  23. 

23  But  the  hour  cometh,  and  now  is,  when  the  true 
worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and 
truth :  ^for  such  doth  the  Father  seek  to  be  his  wor- 

1  Or,  for  such  the  Father  seeketh. 

they  show  how  unfounded  is  the  charge  sometimes  laid  against  this 
Gospel,  that  it  is  marked  by  enmity  to  the  Jewish  people.  It  is  only 
when  'the  Jews'  have  apo-tatized  and  rejected  Jesus  that  the  term 
becomes  one  of  condemnation,  designating  the  enemies  of  all  good- 
ness and  truth. 

Ver.  28.  But  an  hour  cometh,  and  no-w  is,  -w^hen  the  true 
■worshippers  shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  truth. 
This  verse  links  itself  with  both  the  preceding  verses  21  and  22.  To 
no  place  of  special  sanctity  shall  worship  belong :  though  '  the  sal- 
vation is  of  the  Jews,'  this  involves  no  limitation  of  it  to  the  Jewish 
nation  :  on  the  contrary,  an  hour  cometh  when  the  true  worshippers 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  truth.  'An  hour  cometh'  had 
been  said  before  by  Jesus  (ver.  21),  but  He  could  not  then  add  'and 
now  is  ;'  for,  till  the  truth  set  forth  in  ver.  22  had  been  received,  Sa- 
maritans could  not  truly  worship  '  the  Father.'  Now,  however,  they 
and  all  may  do  so.  But  the  added  words  '  and  now  is '  imply  still 
more  than  this.  Following  the  declaration  that  the  Messianic  salva- 
tion comes  from  among  the  Jews,  they  are  no  obscure  intimation  that, 
in  Himself,  the  hour  so  long  waited  for  has  arrived,  and  thus  they  at 
least  prepare  for  the  direct  announcement  to  be  made  in  ver.  26.  The 
word  '  true  '  here  is  that  which  has  been  already  spoken  of  (see  note 
on  chap.  1  :  9,  the  only  place  before  this  in  which  it  has  as  yet  oc- 
curred) as  so  common  and  so  important  in  this  Gospel.  The  wor- 
shippers denoted  by  it  are  not  merely  sincere,  free  from  all  falsehood 
and  dishonesty  ;  they  oflFer  a  worship  that  deserves  the  name,  that 
fully  answers  to  the  lofty,  noble,  pure  idea  that  the  word  '  worship ' 
brings  before  the  mind.  In  the  day  now  dawning  on  the  world  such 
worshippers  as  these  will  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  truth.  It 
is  difficult  to  exhaust  the  meaning  of  these  words,  but  we  must  start 
from  the  two  thoughts  of  the  verses  which  immediately  precede  :  the 
first  and  chief  points  in  the  interpretation  are, — not  in  sacred  place 
but  in  spirit  (ver.  21),  not  in  imperfection  of  knowledge  but  in  truth 
(ver.  22).  The  very  name  by  which  Jesus  indicates  the  object  of  all 
worship,  '  the  Father  '  (a  name  no  longer  used  of  a  chosen  nation,  but 
oflFei'ing  to  each  man  2i personal  relation  to  God),  had  prepared  the  way 
for  the  abolition  of  all  limitations  of  place :  the  teaching  is  completed 
here,  when  man's  spirit  is  declared  to  be  the  '  hallowed  ground '  where 
he  may  approach  his  Father  and  his  God.  Again,  in  the  past  all 
knowledge  of  God  had  been  imperfect, —  not  merely  as  our  knowledge 
of  the  Infinite  must  be  limited,  but  also  in  comparison  with  what  may 
be  known  by  man.  Even  Jews  who  held  the  oracles  of  truth  saw  in  them 
as  '  in  a  mirror  darkly ;'  Samaritans  who  rejected  the  words  of  the 


4:  23.]  JOHN  IV.  95 

prophets  -were  far  more  ignorant.  The  law  had  been  but  a  shadow  of 
the  good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things  (Heb. 
10 :  1 ) ;  type  and  figure  concealed  whilst  they  revealed  the  future 
blessings.  But  'the  hour  now  is'  when  the  truth  of  God  is  revealed, 
— 'truth'  as  well  as  'grace'  has  come  (chap.  1:  17);  and  (in 
the  full  knowledge  of  it)  worship  may  now  be  offered  to  the 
Father.  Read  in  connection  with  other  parts  of  our  Lord's  teachings, 
the  words  '  spirit  and  truth  '  express  much  that  could  not  be  appar- 
ent at  the  moment  when  they  were  spoken.  The  Son  appearing  as  the 
revealer  of  the  Father,  Himself  the  Truth,  Himself  giving  to  men  the 
Holy  Spirit  who  alone  can  ha'low  man's  spirit  as  the  sanctuary  of 
worship, — all  these  are  thoughts  which  cannot  but  press  on  us  as  we 
read  this  verse.— For  the  Father  also  is  seeking  such,  them 
that  -worship  him.  The  hour  of  this  real  worship  is  already  come, 
for  the  Father  also  is  seeking  such  real  worshippers.  They  are  offer- 
ing Him  real  homage,  for  He  on  His  part  is  seeking  them  :  His  seek- 
ing— through  His  Son,  come  to  save  (ver.  23),  and  to  seek  that  He 
may  save  (Luke  19  :  10) — explains  and  renders  possible  this  worship. 
The  original  in  this  clause  is  usually  explained  to  mean  either,  '  The 
Father  seeketh  that  His  worshippers  be  such  '  {i.e.,  that  they  should 
worship  in  spirit  and  truth),  or,  '  For  such  the  Father  seeketh  to  be 
His  worshippers.'  Both  interpretations  involve  serious  difficulties, 
partly  of  language,  partly  of  meaning.  On  the  whole,  the  transla- 
tion given  above  seems  most  probable,  but  its  force  is  not  at  once  ap- 
parent. There  is  a  curious  variation  in  the  Greek  words,  which  is 
often  considered  accidental,  or  at  all  events  too  minute  to  be  significant, 
but  which  we  must  regard  as  intentional  and  important.  In  ver.  21 
and  in  the  first  part  of  23  the  word  '  worship '  has  its  usual  con- 
struction, but  in  this  clause  the  case  which  follows  the  verb  is  suddenly 
changed,  and  a  very  unusual  construction  is  introduced.  We  may 
represent  the  force  of  the  word  as  it  is  commonly  used  by  '  offer 
worship  to  :'  but  as  used  in  the  clause  before  us  and  in  ver.  24,  the 
connection  of  the  verb  with  its  object  becomes  more  direct  and  close. 
An  English  reader  can  feel  the  force  of  a  sudden  transition  from  '  of- 
fering worship  to  the  Father '  to  '  worshipping  the  Father.'  The 
former  may  or  may  not  be  real  and  successful,  and  may  be  used  of  a 
lower  as  well  as  of  the  highest  homage  ;  the  latter  implies  actual  at- 
tainment of  the  end  desired, — reaching  Him  in  worship,  if  we  may  so 
speak  ;  and  thus  it  may  almost  be  said  to  contain  in  itself  the  quali- 
fying words  of  the  preceding  clause,  for  the  ^  reaV  offering  of  wor- 
ship to  God  is  equivalent  to  worshiping  Him.  If  this  view  is  correct, 
and  we  are  persuaded  that  such  a  writer  as  John  could  not  so  vary 
the  language  without  design,  the  meaning  of  the  clause  is  :  For  also 
the  Father  is  now  seeking  such  men, — those,  namely,  who  actually 
worship  Him.  There  is  thus  a  mutual  seeking  and  meeting  on  the 
part  of  the  Father  and  His  children. 


96  JOHN  IV.  [4:  24,25. 

24  shippers.     ^God  is  a  Spirit :    and    they  that  worship 

25  him  must  worship  in  spirit  and  truth.     The  woman 

lOr,  God  is  a  spirit. 

Yer.  24.  God  is  spirit :  and  they  that  -worship  him  must 
"worship  in  spirit  and  truth.  Such  worship  as  is  described  in 
the  last  verse  is  the  only  real  worship  that  can  be  conceived.  This 
verse  does  not  say  what  men  must  do,  in  the  sense  of  what  men  ou^ht 
to  do.  It  is  the  nature  of  worship  in  itself  that  is  described.  No 
other  worship  than  that  which  is  oftered  in  spirit  and  truth  can  possi- 
bly be  actual  worship  of  God  (the  same  idea  is  here  expressed  as  in 
the  last  clause  of  ver.  23),  because  '  God  is  spirit.'  We  must  not  ren- 
der these  words  '  God  is  a  spirit,'  for  it  is  not  personality  that  is  spoken 
of,  but  abstract  being,  the  nature  of  the  divine  essence.  Since  the 
spiritual  presence  of  God  is  everywhere,  Gerizim  and  Jerusalem  lose 
all  claim  to  be  the  special  places  for  His  worship.  Not  the  outward 
action  of  the  worshipper,  not  the  forms  he  uses  or  the  gifts  he  brings, 
but  his  spirit  alone  can  be  brought  to  meet  the  spiritual  presence  of 
God.  Where  this  is  done,  God  Himself  meets  the  spirit  which  He  has 
sought  and  prepared,  and  to  which  He  has  made  known  the  truth  ly- 
ing at  the  foundation  of  all  worship,  the  truth  which  reveals  Himself. 
In  this  wonderful  passage  are  concentrated  many  of  the  most  essen- 
tial truths  of  New  Testament  teaching,  The  historical  development  of 
God's  plan,  the  preparation  for  Christianity  made  by  Judaism,  the  idea 
of  progress  from  the  outward  to  the  inward,  from  the  sensuous  to  the 
spiritual  (comp.  1  Cor.  15:  46),  the  independence  of  forms  which 
marks  the  essence  of  religion,  and  yet  its  freedom  to  clothe  itself  in 
form  so  long  as  the  spirit  is  not  lost, — these  are  the  lessons  taught 
here  ;  and  however  special  the  form  in  which  they  are  presented,  they 
are  in  perfect  accord  with  the  whole  course  of  New  Testament  doc- 
trine. The  main  principles  of  these  verses  would  be  understood  by 
the  woman  to  whom  our  Lord  was  speaking.  But  a  day  in  which 
such  principles  should  be  realized  must  surely  be  that  for  which  Sa- 
maria as  well  as  Judea  was  waiting, — the  'latter  days'  of  Messiah's 
advent. 

Yer.  25.  The  "woman  saith  unto  him,  I  kno"W  that  Mes- 
siah Cometh  (who  is  called  Christ).  There  is  nothing  sur- 
prising in  her  avowal  that  a  Deliverer  was  looked  for.  We  know  from 
other  sources  that  this  was,  and  still  is,  an  article  of  the  Samaritan  as 
of  the  Jewish  faith  ;  from  age  to  age  this  people  had  waited  in  ex- 
pectation of  '  the  Converter,'  or  '  the  Guide.'  But  the  use  of  the 
Jewish  name  '  Messiah '  is  more  remarkable.  We  might  suppose  that 
it  pointed  to  an  approach  towards  Jewish  faith  and  thought  effected 
in  this  woman's  heart  by  the  teachings  of  Jesus,  were  it  not  that  ver. 
29  seems  to  show  that  the  name  was  understood  by  Samaritans  in  gen- 
eral. Yet  it  could  hardly  be  otherwise.  Separated  as  the  nations 
were,  the  famous  name  which  the  .Jews  universally  applied  to  the  De- 
liverer, for  whose  coming  both  peoples  alike  were  waiting,  would  na- 


4:26,27.]  JOHN  IV.  97 

saitli  unto  him,  I  know  that  Messiah  cometh  (which 
is  called  Christ) :  when  he  is   come,  he  will  declare 

26  unto  us  all  things.  Jesus  saitli  unto  her,  I  that  speak 
unto  thee  am  he. 

27  And  upon  this  came  his  disciples ;  and  they  mar- 
velled that  he  was  speaking  with  a  woman ;  yet  no 
man  said,  AVhat  seekest  thou  ?  or,  Why  speakest  thou 

turally  be  known  far  beyond  the  limits  of  Judaea.  The  explanatory  pa- 
renthesis, '  who  is  called  Christ,'  was  no  doubt  added  by  the  Evangel- 
ist, who  afterwards  (ver.  29)  translates  the  word  without  any  mention 
of  the  Hebrew  form. — "When  he  is  come,  he  will  tell  us  all 
things.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  Samaritan  hope  was  mainly 
founded  on  the  great  passage  in  the  Pentateuch,  Deut.  18 :  15-18  (see 
note  on  chap.  1:  21).  The  language  here  used,  'He  will  tell  us  all 
things,'  at  once  reminds  us  of  Deut.  18:  18,  'He  shall  speak  unto 
them  all  that  I  shall  command  him.'  The  dependence  of  the  Samar- 
itans on  the  Pentateuch  alone  would  naturally  lead  to  their  giving 
prominence  to  the  prophetic  aspect  of  the  Coming  One,  so  emphatic- 
ally presented  in  this  passage  of  the  Law,  rather  than  to  the  aspects 
under  which  the  Deliverer  is  viewed  in  the  later  books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  The  woman's  words,  indeed,  may  not  convey  her  whole 
conception  of  Messiah,  for  the  context  has  pointed  only  to  revelation 
and  teaching ;  but  it  is  more  than  probable  that  many  elements  of  the 
Jewish  faith  on  this  subject  would  be  unknown  in  Samaria,  If,  how- 
ever, the  Samaritans  expected  less  than  the  fuller  revelation  warrant- 
ed, they  at  least  escaped  the  prevalent  Jewish  error  of  looking  for  a 
Conqueror  rather  than  a  Prophet,  for  a  temporal  rather  than  a  spirit- 
ual King. 

Ver.  26.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  I  that  speak  unto  thee 
am  he.  She  has  sought  and  found  the  truth.  The  hope  rising  in 
her  heart  receives  full  confirmation  ;  and  a  revelation  not  yet  so 
clearly  and  expressly  given  by  Jesus  to  Israel  is  granted  to  this  alien, 
whose  heart  is  prepared  for  its  reception. 

Ver.  27.  And  upon  this  came  his  disciples;  and  they 
marvelled  that  he  talked  -with  a  woman  :  yet  no  man  said, 
What  seekest  thou  ?  or,  Why  talkest  thou  with  her  ?  To 
talk  with  a  woman  in  public  was  one  of  six  things  forbidden  to  a 
Rabbi.  As  the  disciples  were  returning  from  the  village,  they  won- 
deringly  descry  their  Master  thus  engaged.  Their  surprise,  no  doubt, 
found  expression  in  these  very  questions  (asked  among  themselves) 
which  the  Evangelist  speaks  of  as  not  addressed  to  their  Lord. 
'  What  seeketh  He  ?  what  can  He  be  in  quest  of  that  we  cannot  fur- 
nish ?'  or,  if  He  is  not  seeking  anything,  why  is  He  talking  with  a 
woman?'  The  questions  uttered  to  one  another  they  would  have  at 
once  addressed  to  Jesus,  but  awe  checked  their  impulse  to  speak. 
7 


98  JOHN  IV.  [4:  28-32. 

28  with  her  ?     So  the  woman  left  her  waterpot,  and  went 

29  away  into  the  city,  and  saith  to  the  men,  Come,  see  a 
man,  who  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did  :  can  this 

30  be  the  Christ  ?     They  went  out  of  the  city,  and  were 

31  coming   to   him.      In   the   meanwhile    the   disciples 

32  prayed  him,  saying,  Rabbi,  eat.     But  he  said  unto 

Something  in  His  look  may  have  restrained  them ;  or  the  eager  won- 
dering attitude  of  the  one,  and  the  solemn  earnestness  of  the  Other, 
proclaiming  the  willing  hearer  and  the  earnest  Teacher,  may  have  for- 
bidden them  to  interrupt  such  intercourse. 

Ver.  28.  The  woman  therefore  left  her  "waterpot,  and 
•went  her  way  into  the  city.  'Therefore,' — because,  the  con- 
versation being  interrupted,  there  was  nothing  to  restrain  her  impulse 
to  make  known  the  marvels  she  had  heard.  In  her  eagerness  she 
leaves  her  waterpot  behind :  the  '  living  water '  has  banished  the 
thought  of  that  which  came  from  Jacob's  well. — And  saith  to  the 
men,  whom  she  would  naturally  meet  on  the  roads  and  in  the  streets. 

Ver.  29.  Come,  see  a  man,  w^hich  told  me  all  things  that 
ever  I  did.  She  iixes  on  the  wonderful  knowledge  Avhich  the 
Stranger  had  displayed  :  what  had  impressed  her  must  also  convince 
them.  Let  them  come  for  themselves,  not  rest  on  her  testimony  :  and 
let  them  draw  their  own  conclusions. — Can  this  be  the  Christ? 
Her  own  belief  she  expresses  in  the  form  of  problem  to  be  solved  ;  and 
every  reader  must  feel  how  natural  and  wise  was  her  procedure.  To 
have  declared  herself  convinced  that  the  Stranger  was  the  Christ  would 
have  done  little  towards  persuading  the  men  of  her  own  village :  even 
to  have  quoted  the  declaration  which  Jesus  made  might  have  been 
without  effect  upon  those  who  had  seen  or  heard  nothing  to  authenti- 
cate such  words. 

Ver.  80.  They  went  out  of  the  city,  and  were  on  their 
way  unto  him.  This  verse  is  here  introduced  partly  to  show  the 
immediate  success  of  the  woman's  message  (no  slight  evidence  of  the 
preparedness  of  Samaria  for  the. gospel),  and  partly  to  make  plain  the 
words  of  Jesus  in  a  later  verse  (ver.  35). 

Ver.  31.  In  the  meanw^hile  the  disciples  prayed  him, 
saying.  Rabbi,  eat.  Remembering  His  exhaustion  with  the  jour- 
ney (ver.  6),  they  begged  Him  thus  to  take  advantage  of  this  interval 
of  rest. 

Ver.  32.  But  he  said  unto  them,  I  have  meat  to  eat  that 
ye  know  not.  Literally,  I  have  an  '  eating '  to  eat.  The  word  for 
'  meat '  in  ver.  34  is  different  from  that  used  here,  which  rather  denotes 
the  meal,  the  partaking  of  the  food,  than  the  food  itself.  This  'eat- 
ing '  the  disciples  '  knew  not.'  The  common  rendering  entirely  ob- 
scures the  meaning  :  our  Lord  does  not  say  '  know  not  of,'  but  '  know 
not,' — ye  have  no  experience  of  it.     As  yet,  they  had  not  learned  the 


4:  33-36.]  JOHN  IV.  99 

33  them,  I  have  meat  to  eat  that  ye  know  not.  The 
disciples  therefore  said  one  to  another,  Hath  any  man 

34  brougiit  him  aught  to  eat  ?  Jesus  saith  unto  theju, 
My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and 

35  to  accomplish  his  work.  Say  not  ye,  There  are  yet 
four  months,  and  then  cometh  the  harvest  ?  behold,  I 
say  unto  you.  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the 

36  fields,  that  they  are  ^  white  already  unto  harvest  ?  He 

1  Or,  white  unto  harvest.    Already  he  that  reapeth,  dc. 

power  of  such  work  as  His  (the  complete  fulfilment  of  His  Father's 
will,  ver.  34)  to  satisfy  every  want. 

Yer,  33.  Therefore  said  the  disciples  one  to  another, 
Hath  any  man  brought  him  aught  to  eat?  Their  perplex- 
ity is  like  that  of  the  woman  of  Samaria  in  regard  to  the  living  water 
(ver.  11). 

Ver.  34.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  My  meat  is  that  I 
should  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  and  accomplish 
his  "work.  This  is  the  first  of  many  similar  sayings  in  this  Gospel 
(6  :  30,  6  :  38,  7  :  18,  8  :  50,  9  :  4,  12  :  49,  50,  14  :  31,  15  :  10,  17  :  4), 
expressing  our  Lord's  perfect  loyalty  to  His  Father's  will,  and  com- 
plete devotion  to  the  accomplishment  of  His  Father's  work.  The 
pursuit  of  this  is  not  His  joy,  His  purpose,  His  refreshment  only,  but 
His  very  food,  that  without  which  He  cannot  live.  The  'will'  to  be 
•done'  may  perhaps  remind  us  of  the  action  of  the  hour  or  the  mo- 
ment; the  'work'  to  be  'accomplished,'  of  the  complete  expression 
and  fulfilment  of  the  '  will.' 

Ver.  35.  Say  not  ye, — Has  not  your  language  this  day  been, — 
There  are  yet  four  months,  and  then  cometh  the  harvest  ? 
As  harvest  began  in  the  middle  of  April,  it  was  now  the  middle  of  De- 
cember.— Lo!  I  say  unto  you,  Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  behold 
the  fields,  that  they  are  -white  for  harvesting.  As  in  this 
chapter  we  have  heard  of  a  natural  and  a  spiritual  eating  or  drinking, 
— water  (ver.  10),  food  (ver.  32), — so  here,  introduced  with  equal 
suddenness,  we  have  the  thought  of  a  spiritual  harvest.  Yet,  distant 
as  must  have  seemed  the  harvest  to  the  diJ^ciples  when  they  looked 
upon  the  fields,  far  more  distant  would  seem  the  day  when  Samaritans 
could  be  gathered  into  the  garner  of  the  Lord.  But,  lo  !  they  are  bid 
see,  the  fields  are  already  white  for  harvesting.  These  words,  we  can- 
not doubt,  were  spoken  by  Jesus  in  sight  of  the  Samaritans  flocking 
towards  Him  (ver.  30);  He  saw  the  preparation  of  their  hearts,  the 
impression  made  by  the  woman's  message,  the  faith  which  His  own 
words  would  immediately  bring  forth  ;  nay.  He  saw  a  harvest  far  more 
glorious  than  that  of  this  day's  labors,  even  that  of  the  salvation  of  the 
world  (comp:  note  on  ver.  42). 
.   Ver.  36.    Already  he  that  reapeth  receiveth  reward,  and 


100  JOHN  IV.  [4:  37,38. 

that  reapeth  receiveth  wages  and  gathereth  fruit  unto 
life  eternal :  that  he  that  soweth  and  he  that  reapeth 

37  .may  rejoice  together.     For  herein  is  the  saying  true, 

38  One  soweth,  and  another  reapeth.  I  sent  you  to  reap 
that  whereon  ye  have  not  labored :  others  have  labor- 
ed, and  ye  are  entered  into  their  labor. 

gathereth  fruit  unto  life  eternal :  that  he  that  soweth  and 
he  that  reapeth  may  rejoice  together.  The  figure  is  continued 
and  amplified.  Not  only  are  the  fields  ready  for  harvesting,  but  the 
reaper  is  even  now  at  work,  and  receiving  his  reward;  and  how  glori- 
ous a  reward  !  Not  a  lifeless  store,  but  (as  in  the  case  of  the  spring- 
ing water,  ver.  1-i,  and  the  eating  that  abideth,  chap,  6:  27)  fruit 
gathered  for  life  eternal, — fruit  that  shall  endure  for  ever  in  the  frui- 
tion of  the  new  life  which  Jesus  brings.  And  all  this  takes  place  'al- 
ready' (the  word  even  standing  emphatically  at  the  bead  of  the  sen- 
tence), that  in  the  spiritual  field — so  quickly  does  the  harvest  follow 
the  sowing  of  the  seed — sower  and  reaper  may  rejoice  together. 

Ver.  87,  For  herein  is  the  word  true,  One  soweth,  and 
another  reapeth.  For,  in  the  spiritual  field  of  which  Jesus  speaks, 
the  familiar  saying  is  true,  has  full  reality  (the  word  used  signifying 
'  true,'  as  opposed  not  merely  to  what  is  false,  but  to  all  that  is  par- 
tial and  imperfect), — that  one  has  the  labor  of  the  sower,  another  the 
joy  of  the  reaper. 

Ver.  38,  I  sent  you  to  reap  that  whereon  ye  have  not 
toiled  :  others  have  toiled,  and  ye  have  entered  into  their 
toil.  The  disciples  are  the  reapers  of  this  harvest  ;  their  commis- 
sion— including,  however,  that  of  the  disciples  of  Jesus  throughout 
all  time — was  to  reap  a  harvest  which  had  not  been  prepared  by  their 
own  toil.  AVhatever  toil  may  be  theirs,  it  is  toil  in  reaping — in  joy- 
fully gathering  the  results  of  eai'lier  toil.  The  surprise  and  gladness 
with  which  they  would  shortly  witness  the  faith  of  the  men  of  Sychar 
was  an  emblem  of  what  should  repeat  itself  continually  in  the  history 
of  the  Church,  AVhile  the  disciples  are  reapers,  this  harvesting  in 
Samaria  shows  clearly  who  is  the  sower,  whose  has  been  the  earlier 
toil.  The  words  point  to  Jesus  Himself,  From  beginning  to  end  of 
the  narrative  His  'word,'  first  in  the  conversation  Avith  the  woman, 
and  then  as  spoken  to  the  Samaritans  (ver.  39),  is  the  instrument  by 
which  the  joyful  result  is  gained.  Nor  must  we  limit  our  thought  of 
His  'toil'  to  what  is  related  of  the  work  of  this  evening  by  Jacobs 
well.  The  '  toil '  that  has  made  any  harvest  possible  is  that  of  His 
whole  mission.  All  that  was  necessary  that  He  might  be  able  to  say 
'  I  am  the  Christ,'  the  self-renunciation  and  sorrow  and  pain  of  His 
atoning  and  redeeming  work, — virtually  included  in  His  one  act  of  ac- 
ceptance of  that  work, — and  present  to  His  thought  from  the  begin- 
n\n%, — is  involved  in  His  'toil.'  He  says,  indeed.  '  Others  have  toiled,'' 
and  neither  here  nor  in  chap,  3 :  12  can  we  take  the  plural  as  simply 


4 :  39-42.]  JOHN  IV.  101 

39  And  from  that  city  many  of  the  Samaritans  be- 
lieved on  him  because  of  the  word  of  the  woman,  who 

40  testified,  He  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did.  So 
when  the  Samaritans  came  unto  him,  they  besought 
him  to  abide  with  them  :  and  he  abode  there  two  days. 

41  And  many  more  believed  because  of  his  word  ;  and 

42  they  said  to  the  woman,  Xow  we  believe,  not  because 
of  thy  speaking :  for  we  have  heard  for  ourselves, 
and  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Saviour  of  the 
world. 

standing  for  the  singular.  He  Himself  is  chiefly  intended,  but  others 
are  joined  as  having  shared  in  the  preparatory  work.  He  had  been 
alone  in  conversing  with  the  woman  of  Samaria  ;  but  He  had  taken 
up  and  made  use  of  all  that  she  had  received  from  the  teaching  of 
Moses  fver.  2-3),  and  all  that  the  .Jews  had  learnt  from  the  prophets. 
Thus  He  includes  with  Himself  those  who  had  prepared  the  way  for 
His  coming.  For  Him,  and  therefore  with  Him,  they  had  '  toiled  ;' 
but  all  His  servants  who  come  after  Him  find  the  field  too  prepared, 
the  toll  past,  the  harvest  of  that  toil  ready  to  be  reaped. 

Ver.  39.  And  from  that  city  many  of  the  Samaritans  be- 
lieved in  him  because  of  the  word  of  the  woman,  bearing 
witness.  He  told  me  all  things  that  ever  I  did.  The  ar- 
rangement of  the  words  shows  the  prominence  which  John  would 
give  to  the  thought  that  many  Samaritans  believe  1  in  Jesus.  Their 
faith,  too,  was  only  mediately  called  forth  by  the  woman's  word,  for 
the  Evangelist  describes  her  by  his  favorite  and  most  expressive  term, 
as  one  '  bearing  witness  '  c  -ncerning  Je-us. 

Ver.  40.  "When  therefore  the  Samaritans  were  come  unto 
him  they  besought  him  that  he  would  abide  with  them : 
and  he  abode  there  two  days.  Mark  the  contrast  between  Judasa 
repelling  and  Samaria  inviting:  a  dead  and  petrified  orthodoxy  may 
be  more  proof  agiinst  the  word  of  life  thin  heresy. 

Vers.  41.42.  And  many  more  believed  because  of  his 
word  :  and  they  said  unto  the  woman,  No,  longer  because 
of  thy  speaking  do  we  believe :  for  w^e  have  heard  for 
ourselves,  and  we  know  that  this  is  indeed  the  Saviour 
of  the  world.  Among  those  that  heard  the  Saviour  were  evidently 
some  who  had  first  believed  because  of  the  woman's  testimony  (*  No 
longer.  .  .'):  hearing  for  themselves,  they  were  led  into  a  deeper 
faith. — There  is  nothing  disparaging,  as  some  have  supposed,  in  the 
use  of  the  word  '  speech  '  or  '  speaking '  in  regard  to  the  woman's 
message :  the  expression  is  simply  equivalent  to  because  thou  speikest, 
and  relates  to  the  fact  of  speaking,  in  contrast  with  the  substance  of 
the  teaching, — the  'word'  of  Jesus  Himself. — The  last  words  in  the 


102  JOHN  IV.  [4:  43. 

Chapter  4  :  43-54. 

Jesus  in  Galilee. 

43      And   after    the    two    days    lie   went    forth   from 

confession  of  the  Samaritans  (this  is  indeed  the  Saviour  of  the  world) 
contain  no  real  difficulty.  The  teacliing  of  vers.  21-24  directly  led  to  the 
recognition  of  this  truth.  It  was  much  to  realize  that  Jesus,  as  Mes- 
siah, was  a  Saviour,  not  merely  a  Prophet  who  would  bring  a  revela-  - 
tion  from  God.  But  when  the  thought  of  a  Saviour  of  Jews  alone  is 
once  overpassed,  there  is  no  intermediate  position  between  this  and 
the  conception  contained  in  the  words  before  us— a  Saviour  of  the 
world.  The  Evangelist,  in  recording  them,  plainly  intends  to  point 
out  to  us  the  special  significance  of  the  whole  narrative  :  the  con- 
version of  Samaritans  was  a  promise  of  the  conversion  of  the  world. 

Jesus  in  Galilee,   vers.  43-54. 

Conte?:ts.  This  section  of  the  Gospel  brings  Jesus  before  ns  in  Galilee,  in  His  in- 
tercourse with  the  Galileans,  and  in  particular  with  the  king's  officer,  who  may  be  re- 
garded as  in  a  certain  sense  their  representative.  The  object  is  still  the  same  as  that 
which  we  have  traced  from  chap.  2  :  12.  Examples  have  been  given  of  the  manner 
in  which  Judfea  and  Samaria  submit  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  and  these  are  now  crowned 
by  an  instance  of  similar  submis-ion  on  the  part  of  Galilee.  The  section  divides  it- 
self into  two  subordinate  parts— (I)  vers.  43-45,  introductory,  after  the  manner  of  the 
introduction  to  the  story  of  Xicodemus  in  2:  23-25,  and  of  that  to  the  visit  to  Sa- 
maria in  4:  1-4;  vers.  46-54,  the  account  of  the  intercourse  of  Jesus  with  the  king's 
officer. 

Vers.  43,  44.  And  after  the  t-wo  days  he  -went  forth  thence 
into  Galilee.  For  Jesus  himself  bare  -witness,  that  a 
prophet  hath  no  honor  in  his  own  country.  The  connection 
between  these  two  verses  is  a  question  on  which  the  most  different 
opinions  have  been  held.  The  latter  verse  evidently  assigns  a  reason 
why  Jesus  went  into  Galilee ;  and  (we  may  add)  ver.  46,  which 
begins  with  '  When  therefore,'  must  be  understood  as  stating  that  the 
welcome  He  received  in  Galilee  was  in  full  accordance  with  the  motive 
of  His  action  as  stated  in  ver.  44.  These  two  conditions  of  interpre- 
tation must  evidently  be  observed,  and  yet  in  several  solutions  of  the 
difficulty  one  or  other  of  them  is  plainly  set  aside.  Were  we  to  judge 
only  from  what  is  before  us,  we  should  say  that  the  words  must 
mean  :  Jesus  went  into  Galilee  and  not  into  His  own  country,  for  there 
He  would  be  a  prophet  without  honor ;  and  so,  when  He  came  into 
Galilee,  He  was  welcomed  by  the  people.  If  such  be  the  true  sense, 
*  His  own  country '  must  be  Jadcea.  This  is  certainly  not  the  meaning 
of  these  words  in  the  earlier  Gospels,  and  hence  the  difficulty.  A 
similar  saying  is  recorded  by  every  one  of  the  three  earlier  Evan- 
gelists, and  in  each  case  it  is  introduced  to  explain  the  neglect  of  the 
claims  of  Jesus  on  the  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  Nazareth,  the  city  of 


4 :  44,  45.]  JOHN  IV.  103 

44  thence   into    Galilee.      For   Jesos    himself  testified, 
that  a  prophet  hath  no  honor  in  his  own   country. 

45  So  when  he  came  into   Galilee,  the  Galileans  received 

Galilee  in  which  His  early  years  were  spent  (Matt.  13  :  57  ;  Mark  6  : 
4  ;  Luke  4 :  24).  In  one  case,  Mark  6 :  4,  the  saying  is  enlarged  so  a»s 
to  apply  especially  to  kindred,  and  not  to  country  alone.  If  then  we 
have  rightly  given  the  sense  of  these  verses  of  John,  it  must  follow 
that,  though  the  saying  quoted  is  nearly  the  same  here  as  elsewhere, 
the  application  is  wholly  different.  '  His  own  country  '  being  in  the 
one  case  Galilee  (or  rather  Nazareth),  and  in  the  other  Judsea.  This 
is  by  many  held  to  be  impossible.  But  is  it  really  so  ?  Would  not 
such  a  diflFerence  be  in  exact  accord  with  the  varied  aims  of  the  first 
three  Evangelists  and  the  fourth,  as  they  respectively  relate  the  Gal- 
ilean and  the  Judaean  ministry  of  our  Lord?  The  saying  is  one  that 
may  be  used  with  various  shades  of  meaning.  Used  in  relation  to  Naz- 
areth, the  proverb  brings  before  us  the  unwillingness  with  which  the 
claims  of  a  prophet  are  listened  to  by  those  who  have  grown  up  with 
him,  have  familiarly  known  him,  have  regarded  him  as  one  of  them- 
selves. Used  in  relation  to  .Judtea,  the  true  home  and  fatherland  of 
the  prophets,  the  land  which  contained  the  city  of  Messiah's  birth,  the 
city  associated  with  Him  alike  in  ancient  prophecy  and  in  popular  ex- 
pectation (see  chap.  7  :  41,  42),  the  words  surely  signify  that  a  prophet 
is  unhonored  by  those  to  whom  he  is  especially  sent :  Jesus  came  unto 
His  own  country,  and  '  His  own  received  Him  not.'  This  interpreta- 
tion then  (which  is  that  of  Origen,  in  the  third  century)  seems  com- 
pletely to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  passage.  In  Samaria  Jesus 
had  not  intended  to  remain,  and  He  must  therefore  either  return  to 
Judjfiaorgo  into  Galilee ;  to  Judaea  He  will  not  go,  for  the  reason 
given  ;  He  departs  therefore  into  Galilee.  There  is  only  one  objec- 
tion, viz.,  that  in  vers.  1-3  of  this  chapter  a  somewhat  diflFerent  motive 
for  leaving  Judcea  is  assigned  ;  yet  even  there,  though  success  in  win- 
ning disciples  is  implied,  it  is  said  that  He  left  the  land  because  of  the 
Pharisees.  Our  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  is  imperfect,  and, 
even  in  its  utmost  force,  the  objection  is  much  smaller  than  those 
which  lie  in  the  way  of  the  other  interpretation  of  '  His  own  country.' 
For  such  as  think  that  Galilee  must  be  intended  there  are  but  two  ex- 
planations possible;  (1)  Jesus  went  into  Galilee,  for  there  He  would 
not  meet  with  the  honor  of  a  true  faith  ;  and  there,  consequently.  He 
had  a  work  to  do,  a  mission  to  prosecute:  when  therefore  He  came 
into  Galilee,  although  He  was  welcomed,  it  was  from  unworthy  mo- 
tives. (2)  Jesus  now  at  length  went  into  Galilee,  for  (He  had  avoided 
Galilee  in  the  belief  that)  a  prophet  has  no  honor  in  his  own  country: 
such  honor,  however,  He  has  now  won  in  Judasa,  outside  His  own 
country ;  when  therefore  He  was  come  into  Galilee,  the  Galileans  re- 
ceived him. 

Ver.  45.     "When  therefore  he  -was  come  into  Galilee,  the 
Galileans  received  him,  having  seen  all  the  things  what- 


104  JOHN  IV.  [4:  46-48. 

him,  having  seen  all  the  things  that  he  did  in  Je- 
rusalem at  the  feast  :  for  they  also  went  unto  the 
feast. 

46  He  came  therefore  again  unto  Cana  of  Galilee, 
where  he  made  the  water  wine.  And  there  was  a 
certain  hiobleman,  whose  son   w^as  sick  at  Caperna- 

47  um.  When  he  heard  that  Jesus  was  come  out  of 
Judsea  into  Galilee,  he  w^ent  unto  him,  and  besought 
him  that  he  would  come  dow^n,  and  heal  his  son  :  for 

48  he  was  at  the  point  of  death.  Jesus  therefore  said 
unto  him,  Except  ye  see  signs  and  wonders,  ye  will 

1  Or,  king's  officer. 

soever  he  did  at  Jerusalem  at  the  feast ;  for  they  also  v^ent 
unto  the  feast.  The  'feast'  is  no  doubt  the  Passover  of  which  we 
read  in  chap.  2 ;  and  the  faith  of  these  Galileans  is  precisely  similar 
to  that  of  the  *  many  '  spoken  of  in  ver.  23  of  that  chapter. — real,  but 
not  of  the  highest  kind. 

Ver.  46.  He  came  therefore  again  into  Cana  of  Galilee, 
•where  he  made  the  water  wine.  His  coming  revives  the  fame  of 
that  first  miracle,  and  the  report  of  His  arrival  quickly  spreads. — And 
there  -was  a  certain  king's  ofiicer,  "whose  son  w^as  sick 
at  Capernaum.  This  officer  was  probably  in  the  (civil  or  military) 
service  of  Herod  Antipas,  a  Tetrarch,  but  often  styled  a  king  (see 
Matt.  14:  1,9;  Mark  6  :  14,  etc.).  The  officer  himself  may  have  been 
in  attendance  on  the  court  in  Tiberias,  but  his  son  (probably  an  only 
son,  as  the  Greek  literally  means  'of  whom  the  son  .  .  .  ')  was  lying  ill 
at  Capernaum. 

Ver.  47.  "When  he  heard  that  Jesus  was  come  out  of  Ju- 
daea into  Galilee,  h  e  w^ent  unto  him,  and  besought  him  that 
he  -would  come  down,  and  heal  his  son :  for  he  was  at 
the  point  of  death.  The  faith  of  this  father  rested  on  the  miracles 
of  which  he  had  heard.  Would  Jesus  but  come  down  from  Cana  to 
Capernaum,  his  son  also  might  be  healed.  But  Jesus  mu^t  always 
reprove  the  spirit  which  requires  '  signs  and  wonders '  before  yielding 
faith;  and  He  does  it  now. 

Ver.  48.  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  him,  Except  ye  see 
signs  and  w^onders,  ye  w^ill  not  believe.  The  charge  against 
the  father  is  that  his  apparent  faith  is  only  thinly-veiled  unbelief. — 
The  words  seem  most  suitably  addressed  to  a  Jew  (comp.  Matt.  12  :  39, 
16  :  1 ;  1  Cor.  1  :  22)  :  on  the  other  hand,  the  officer's  connection  with 
the  court  leads  rather  to  the  belief  that  he  was  a  Gentile.  As  to  '  signs,' 
see  the  notes  on  chap.  2:  11,23.  As  a  'sign'  is  the  highest,  so  a 
'  wonder'  is  the  least  noble  name  for  a  miracle.  In  so  far  as  the  mir- 
acle is  a  prodigy  and  excites  amazement  it  is  a  '  wonder.' 


4:  49-52.]  JOHN  IV.  105 

49  in  no  wise  believe.     The  ^nobleman  saith   unto  him, 

50  ^Sir,  come  down  ere  my  child  die.  Jesus  saith  unto 
him,  Go  thy  way  ;  thy  son  liveth.  The  man  believed 
the   word  that  Jesus  spake  unto  him,  and  he  went 

51  his  way.     And  as  he  was  now  going  down,  his  ^ser- 
53  vants  met  him,  saying,  that  his  son  lived.     So  he  in- 
quired of  them  the   hour  when  he  began  to  amend. 
They  said  therefore  unto  him.  Yesterday  at  the  sev- 

1  Or,  king's  officer.  -  Or,  Lord.  3  Gr.  bondservant. 

Ver.  49.  The  king's  officer  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  come 
do"wn  ere  my  child  die.  The  answer  of  Jesus,  which  had  seemed 
perhaps  to  imply  cold  neglect,  calls  forth  an  impassioned  appeal  for 
pity  and  help  ;  there  were  no  moments  to  be  lost, — even  now  the  help 
may  come  too  late.  Jesus  was  but  educating — refining  and  deepen- 
ing— his  faith. 

Ver.  50.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Go  thy  way ;  thy  son 
liveth.  The  man  believed  the  word  that  Jesus  spake  unto 
him,  and  he  "went  his  "way.  Jesus  does  not  need  the  passionate 
appeal :  the  prayer  has  been  already  granted.  '  Thy  son  liveth  '  does 
not  mean,  '  is  made  to  live  now  after  thy  second  petition';  but,  '  even 
while  the  word  is  in  thy  mouth,  or  before  it  was  so,  thy  son  liveth.' 
The  meaning,  in  short,  is  not,  I  perform  the  cure  at  this  instant;  but 
rather,  I  have  performed  it,  the  work  is  done,  thy  son  is  recovered. 
He  will  not  come  to  heal  the  child  ;  there  is  no  need  that  He  should 
do  so,  the  child  is  already  whole.  Will  the  feather  believe  the  word? 
He  will,  for  his  faith  is  purified  and  changed  :  it  is  now  faith  in  the 
word  of  Jesus,  though  no  sign  or  wonder  has  been  seen. 

Ver.  51.  And  as  he  w^as  now  going  down,  his  servant 
met  him,  saying  that  his  son  lived.  The  word  •  now '  (or 
*  already ' )  may  appear  superfluous,  but  it  may  possibly  imply  that 
some  time  had  elapsed  since  the  words  of  ver,  50  were  spoken, — 
'when  he  had  now  begun  the  journey.'  Business  may  have  detained 
him  for  a  few  hours  in  Cana  ;  and  if  it  did  so,  it  would  be  a  testi- 
mony to  the  firmness  of  that  faith  with  which  he  had  now  believed  in 
Jesus.  *  Going  down,' — because  Cana  is  situated  in  the  hilly  district, 
several  hundred  feet  above  tire  level  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 

Ver.  52.  He  inquired  of  them  therefore  the  hourw^hen 
he  began  to  amend.  They  said  therefore  unto  him, 
Yesterday  at  the  seventh  hour  the  fever  left  him.  As  the 
distance  between  Cana  and  Capernaum  is  not  above  five-and-twenty 
miles,  it  may  seem  strange  that  the  ofiicer  should  not  have  reached  his 
home  the  same  day.  If  the  '  seventh  hour'  were  reckoned  from  sun- 
rise, the  time  of  the  cure  would  be  a  liittle  later  than  noon  ;  in  that 
case  it  would  be  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  servants  were  following 
the  familiar  Jewish  reckoning  of  time,  and  regarding  sunset  as  the 


106  JOHN  IV.  [4:  53,  54. 

53  enth  hour  the  fever  left  him.  So  the  father  knew 
that  it  was  at  that  hour  in  which  Jesus  said  unto 
him,  Thy  son  liveth  :     and  himself  believed,  and  his 

54  whole  house.  This  is  again  the  second  sign  that 
Jesus  did,  having  come  out  of  Judsea  into  Galilee. 

commencement  of  a  new  day.  It  seems,  however,  much  more  proba- 
ble (see  the  note  on  ver.  6)  that  by  the  '  seventh  hour'  we  must  un- 
derstand 6  to  7  P.  M,  Even  without  the  supposition  that  the  father 
had  been  detained  in  Cana,  this  will  suit  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
narrative. — The  words  '  began  to  amend  '  do  not  suggest  any  hesita- 
tion on  the  father's  part  as  to  the  completeness  of  the  cure.  He  had 
believed  the  word  'thy  son  liveth'  (ver.  50),  and  what  he  asks  now  is 
as  to  the  hour  at  which  his  child  had  been  stopped  upon  the  road  to 
dezrth,  and  turned  back  upon  that  to  full  health  and  strength. 

Ver.  53.  So  the  father  perceived  that  it  was  at  the  same 
hour  in  "which  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Thy  son  liveth : 
and  himself  believed,  and  his  whole  house.  Believed — that 
is,  with  a  faith  increased  and  confirmed  :  true  faith  he  had  manifested 
before.  Many  have  supposed  that  this  king's  officer  may  have  been 
Chuza,  'Herod's  steward'  (Luke  8:  3),  whose  wife  Joanna  was 
amongst  those  women  who  ministered  of  their  substance  to  the  wants 
of  Jesus  and  His  disciples. 

Ver.  54.  This  Jesus  again  did,  as  a  second  sign,  having 
come  out  of  Judaea  into  Galilee.  The  order  of  the  origi- 
nal is  remarkable,  and  we  endeavor  to  represent  it  by  a  trans- 
lation which,  if  literal,  is  yet  sufficiently  idiomatical.  '  This ' 
stands  alone  ;  '  a  second  sign  '  is  in  apposition  with  it.  There  is 
thus  by  means  of  '  again'  and  *  second '  a  double  statement  as  to 
the  position  of  the  miracle  ;  and  as  we  know  that  other  miracles 
not  numbered,  were  wrought  in  Galilee  (chap.  6),  and  that  thei-e  had 
already  been  '  signs '  also  in  Judtea  (chap.  2:  23),  the  two  points 
upon  which  our  attention  is  fixed  seem  to  be — (1)  that  this  miracle  Avas 
wrought  in  Galilee  ;  (2)  that  it  was  a  second  miracle  there.  The  first 
of  these  points  receives  importance  from  the  fact  that  the  '  sign  '  now 
related  was  done  after  Jesus  had  left  '  His  own  country,'  rejected  by 
'  His  own '  to  be  accepted  by  Galileans :  the  second  magnifies  the 
sign  itself,  for  the  mention  of  it  as  a  '  second  '  appears  to  flow  from 
the  tendency  of  the  Evangelist  to  give  double  pictures  of  any  truth 
which  possesses  in  his  eyes  peculiar  weight.  This  is  the  case  here. 
From  the  first  Jesus  showed  that  His  mission  was  not  confined  to 
Judfea.  It  included  Galilee,  a  province  representative  not  of  Jews 
only  but  of  Gentiles,  out  of  which  the  Jews  thouglU  that  no  prophet 
could  come  (7  :  52)  :  it  was  not  a  local  but  a  universal  mission.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  discuss  the  question  whether  this  miracle  is  identical 
with  that  related  in  Matt.  8  :  5-13  ;  Luke  7  :  2-10.  We  may  wonder 
that  such  a  question  was  ever  raised.  One  point  of  similarity  exists, 
in  that  in  each  case  the  cure  was  performed  at  a  distance  :  in  all  other 


6:1-]  JOHN  V.  107 


Chapter  5:  1-18. 
Jesus  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda. 
1      After  these  things   there  was  ^a  feast  of  the  Jews  • 
and  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  ' 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  the  feast. 

respects  tlie  narratives  are  wholly  different —agreeing  neither  in  time 
nor  in  place,  nor  in  the  station  of  the  persons  concerned,  nor  in  the 
character  of  the  faith  evinced. 

Jesus  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda.   5  :   1-18. 
Contents.    With  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  we  enter  upon  the  fourth  and  lead- 
ing division  of  the  Gospel,  extending  to  the  close  of  chup.  12.  Its  object  is  to  set  Jesua 
forth  in  the  height  of  llis  conflict  with  ignorance  and  e.ror  and  sin.     More  particu- 
larly, the  Kcdeemer  appears  throughout  it  iu  the  light  in  whicli  He  had  already  beea 
presented  in  the  Prologue,  as  the  culminating-poiut  and  fulfillment  of  all  previous 
revelations  of  God,  whether  in  the  Old  Testament  or  in  nature.     In  chap    5  He  is  the 
fulfillment  of  the  Sabbath,  the  greatest  of  all  the  institutions  given   throir^h  Moses 
The  subordinate  parts  of  the  first  section  of  the  chap,  are-(l)  vers.  1-9,  the  account 
of  the-miiacle  at  the  pool  of  Bethesda;  (2)  vers.  10-18,  the  opposition  of  the  Jews 
leading  to  the  proclamation  of  the  great  truths  contained  in  the  second  section. 

Yer.  1.  After  these  things  there  was  a  feast  of  the  Jews  ; 
And  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem.  No  more  is  said  as  to  the 
visit  to  Galilee  than  what  we  find  in  4  :  43-54.  We  are  taken  at  once 
to  the  close  of  the  visit,  when  Jesus  went  up  again  to  Jerusalem.  The 
occasion  of  His  going  up  was  the  occurrence  of  a  festival.  Contrary  to 
his  wont,  the  Evangelist  says  nothing  of  the  nature  of  the  festival, 
merely  adding  (as  in  2  :  13,  7 :  2,  etc.)  the  words  'of  the  Jews.'  Not 
a  few  Greeek  manuscripts  and  other  authorities  endeavor  to  remove 
the  difficulty  by  inserting  the  article,  and  reading  '  the  feast  of  the 
Jews,'  an  expression  usually  thought  to  mean  the  passover.  The 
weight  of  evidence,  however,  is  distinctly  in  favor  of  reading  '  a 
feast;'  and  we  may  safely  say  that  with  this  reading  the  Passover°can- 
not  be  intended.  Were  it  possible  to  believe  that  the  great  national 
festival  is  spoken  of,  the  consequences  would  be  important.  In  that 
case  four  Passovers  would  be  mentioned  in  this  Gospel  (2 ;  13,  5  :  4, 
18 :  28)  ;  and  of  one  whole  year  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry  the 
only  record  preserved  would  be  that  contained  in  the  chapter  before 
us.  The  critical  evidence,  however,  sets  the  discussion  at  rest  so  far 
as  the  Passover  is  concerned,  and  we  have  only  to  inquire  which  of 
the  remaining  festivals  best  suits  the  few  statements  of  the  Evangelist 
bearing  on  this  part  of  the  history.  Our  two  landmarks  are  4 :  35 
and  6:  4.  The  former  verse  assigns  the  journey  through  Samaria  to 
the  month  of  December,  the  latter  shows  that  the  events  recorded 
in  chap.  G  took  place  in  March  or   April ;  hence,  in  all   probability, 


108  JOHN  V.'  [5:1. 

the  festival  of  chap.  5  :  1  falls  within  the  three  or  four  months  be- 
tween these  limits.  If  so,  the  feast  of  Pentecost  (about  May),  Taber- 
nacles (September  or  October),  and  the  Dedication  of  the  Temple 
(December)  are  at  once  excluded  ;  and  no  other  feast  remains  except 
that  of  Purim,  which  fell  about  the  month  earlier  than  the  Passover. 
This  feast,  therefore,  is  now  generally  believed  to  be  the  one  referred  to 
here.  It  is  said  that  our  Lord  would  hardly  go  up  to  Jerusalem  for  Pu- 
rim. As  to  this,  however,  we  are  unable  to  judge  ;  in  many  ways  un- 
known to  us,  that  feast  may  have  furnished  a  litting  occasion  for  His  vis- 
it. Its  human  origin  would  not  be  an  obstacle  (comp.  chap.  10  :  22),  nor 
would  its  national  and  patriotic  character.  It  is  true  that  there  were 
abuses  in  the  celebration  of  Purim,  and  that  excess  and  license  seem 
to  have  been  common.  Still  we  cannot  doubt  that  many  devout  Is- 
raelites would  be  occupied  with  thankful  recollection  of  the  wonderful 
deliverance  of  their  nation  commemorated  by  the  feast,  rather  than 
with  revelry  and  boisterous  mirth.  One  other  objection  may  be  noticed. 
The  feast  of  Purim  was  not  allowed  to  fall  on  a  Sabbath,  and  hence,  it 
is  argued,  cannot  be  thought  of  here.  But  nothing  in  the  chapter 
leads  necessarily  to  the  supposition  that  the  Sabbath  on  which  the  mir- 
acle was  wrought  was  the  day  of  the  feast.  The  feast  was  the  occa- 
sion of  our  Lord's  going  up  to  Jerusalem  :  the  Sabbath  may  have 
fallen  soon  after  His  arrival  in  the  city  ;  more  than  this  we  have  no 
right  to  say.  If  therefore  we  look  at  the  historical  course  of  the  nar- 
rative, it  would  seem  that,  of  the  solutions  hitherto  offered,  that  which 
fixes  upon  Purim  as  the  feast  referred  to  in  the  text  is  the  most  prob- 
able. But  there  is  another  question  of  great  importance,  which  must 
not  be  overlooked.  Why  did  John,  whose  custom  it  is  to  mark  very 
clearly  the  festival  of  which  he  speaks  (see  2  :  13,  23 ;  6  :  4  ;  7:2; 
10:  22;  11:  55;  12  :  1  ;  13  :  1  ;  18 :  39  ;  19:  14),  write  so  in- 
definitely here?  The  feast  before  us  is  the  only  one  in  the  whole  Gos- 
pel on  which  a  doubt  can  rest.  The  only  reply  which  it  seems  possi- 
ble to  give  is  that  the  indefiniteness  is  the  result  of  design.  The  Evan- 
gelist omits  the  name  of  the  feast,  that  the  reader  may  not  attach  to  it 
a  significance  which  was  not  intended.  To  John,— through  clearness 
of  insight,  not  from  power  of  fancy, — every  action  of  his  Master  was 
fraught  with  deep  significance  ;  and  no  one  who  receives  the  Lord 
Jesus  as  he  received  Him  can  hesitate  to  admit  in  all  His  words  and 
deeds  a  fulness  of  meaning,  a  perfection  of  fitness,  immeasurably  be- 
yond what  can  be  attributed  to  the  highest  of  human  prophets.  Our 
Lord's  relation  to  the  whole  Jewish  economy  is  never  absent  from 
John's  thought.  Jesus  enters  the  Jewish  temple  (chap.  2:  14)  :  His 
own  words  can  be  understood  by  those  only  who  recognise  that  He 
Himself  is  the  true  Temple  of  God.  The  ordained  festivals  of  the  na- 
tion find  their  fulfillment  in  Him.  Never,  we  may  say,  is  any  festi- 
val named  in  this  Gospel  in  connection  with  our  Lord,  without  an  in- 
tention on  the  writer's  pai't  that  we  should  see  the  truth  which  he  saw, 
and  behold  in  it  a  type  of  his  Master  or  His  work.  If  this  be  true, 
the  indefiniteness  of  the  language  here  is  designed  to  prevent  our  rest- 


5:  2.]  JOHN  V.  109 

2      Xow   there   is   in   Jerusalem  by  the  sheep  gate  a 
pool,  which  is  called  in   Hebrew  ^Bethesda,   having 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  TeadBeth^nid-x,  others  Bethzatha. 

ing  on  the  thought  of  this  particular  festival  as  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  and 
to  lead  to  the  concentration  of  our  attention  on  the  Sabbath  shortly  to 
be  mentioned,  which  in  this  chapter  has  an  importance  altogether  ex- 
ceptional. Were  it  possible  to  think  that  the  'feast'  referred  to  was 
the  Sabbath  itself,  all  difficulties  would  be  at  once  removed. 

Yer.  2.  No-w  there  is  at  Jerusalem  by  the  sheep-pool  the 
pool  -which  is  surnamed  in  the  Hebrew  tongue  Bethesda, 
having  five  porticos.  The  use  of  the  present  tense,  there  is,  may 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  pool  still  remained  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem ;  unless  indeed  we  adopt  the  opinion  that,  as  John  in  all 
probability  committed  to  writing  very  earl}-  his  recollections  of  his 
Lord's  discourses  and  works,  an  incilental  mark  of  his  practice  is 
left  us  in  this  verse. — The  translation  of  the  words  that  follow  is  much 
disputed.  The  Greek  word  for  '  pool'  may  be  written  in  two  ways. 
That  which  is  usually  adopted  gives  the  meaning,  '  there  is  by  the 
sheep.  .  .  .  a  pool,  that  which  is  surnamed,'  etc.;  and  the  question 
is  how  the  ellipsis  is  to  be  filled  up.  There  is  no  authority  for  supply- 
ing '  market,'  as  is  done  in  the  Authorised  Version  ;  and  that  method 
of  supplying  the  blank  is  now  generally  abandoned.  The  i<lea  of  most 
writers  on  the  Gospel  is  that  the  '  sheep-gate '  (Neh.  3  :  1,  32  ;  12  :  39) 
is  intended,  but  we  have  found  no  example  of  a  similar  omission  of 
the  word  '  gate.'  We  are  thus  led  to  examine  the  other  mode  of  writ- 
ing the  Greek  word  '  pool,'  from  which  results  the  translation,  '  there 
is  by  the  sheep-pool  i\\Q  pool  that  is  surnamed  :'  and  to  this  rendering 
of  the  sentence  there  appears  to  be^no  valid  objection.  It  may,  indeed, 
seem  strange  that  the  situation  of  the  pool  called  Bethesda  should  be 
defined  by  its  proximity  to  another  pool  about  which  no  information  is 
preserved  ;  but  in  questions  relating  to  the^topography  of  Jerusalem 
arguments  from  the  silence  of  historians  are  not  worth  much.  Early 
Christian  writers  also  (Eusebius  and  Jerome)  do  actually  speak  of  a 
sheep-pool  in  Jerusalem  in  connection  with  this  passage.  Ammonius 
tells  us  that  the  pool  was  so  called  from  the  habit  of  gathering  together 
there  the  sheep  that  were  to  be  sacrificed  for  the  feast :  similarly  The- 
odore of  Mopsuestia.  And  it  is  very  interesting  to  notice  that  an 
early  traveler  in  the  Holy  Land  (about  the  first  half  of  the  fourth 
century)  speaks  of  '  twin  pools  in  Jerusalem,  having  five  porticos.' 
We  conclude  therefore  that  John  defines  the  position  of  the  pool  with 
which  the  following  narrative  is  connected  by  its  nearness  to  another 
pool,  probably  of  larger  size,  and  at  that  time  well  known  as  the 
•  sheep-pool.'  It  is  remarkable  that  of  the  other  pool  the  proper 
name  is  not  mentioned,  but  only  a  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic  second 
name  or  surname.  Several  forms  of  the  name  are  given  in  Greek  man- 
uscripts and  other  authorities.  If  we  assume  that  Bethesda  is  the 
true  form,  the  most  probable  explanation  is    *  House  of  grace.'    It  is 


110  JOHN  V.  [5 :  3-5. 

3  five  porches.     In  these  lay  a  multitude  of  them  that 

5  were   sick,    blind,    halt,    withered.^     And    a   certain 

man   was   there,    which  had  been   thirty  and    eight 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  insert,  wholly  or  in  -^axi,  waiting  for  the  movinrj  of  the 
water  :  for  an  angel  of  the  Lord  went  dnwti  ut  certain  seasons  into  the  pool,  and  troubled 
the  water :  Whoxoevtr  then  first  after  the  troubling  of  the  water  stepped  in  was  made 
whole,  with  whatsoever  disease  he  was  holden. 

easy  to  see  that  such  a  name  might  naturally  arise,  and  might  indeed 
become  the  common  appellation  amongst  those  who  associate  a  bene- 
ficent healing  power  with  the  waters  of  the  pool ;  and  it  is  also  easy  to 
understand  how  it  was  the  second  name  that  lingered  in  John's 
thought, — a  name  which  to  him  bore  a  high  significance,  recalling  the 
'grace'  which  came  through  Jesus  Christ  (1:  17),  and  of  which  a 
wonderful  manifestation  was  made  at  this  very  spot.  The  pool  called 
Bethesda  had  five  porticos  ;  probably  it  was  five-sided,  and  surrounded 
by  an  arched  verandah  or  colonnade,  closed  in  on  the  outward  side. 
The  hot  springs  of  Tiberias  are  so  surrounded  at  this  day,  and  it  is  at 
least  possible  that  the  style  of  architecture  may  be  traditional. 

Ver.  3.  In  these  lay  a  multitude  of  sick  folk,  of  blind, 
halt,  -withered.  Under  the  shelter  of  these  porticos  many  such 
were  laid  day  after  day.  The  general  term  '  sick  folk  '  receives  its  ex- 
planation afterwards  as  consisting  of  those  who  were  blind,  or  lame, 
or  whose  bodies  or  limbs  were  wasted — The  omission  of  the  remain- 
ing words  of  ver.  3  and  of  the  whole  of  ver.  4  is  supported  by  a 
weight  of  authority  which  it  is  impossible  to  set  aside.  The  addition 
belongs,  however,  to  a  very  early  date,  for  its  contents  are  clearly  re- 
ferred to  by  Tertullian  early  in  the  third  century.  It  is  evidently  an 
explanatory  comment  first  written  in  the  margin  by  those  who  saw 
that  the  words  of  ver.  7  imply  incidents  or  opinions  of  which  the  nar- 
rative as  it  stands  gives  no  account.  The  well-intentioned  gloss  was 
not  long  in  finding  its  way  into  the  text ;  and  once  there,  it  gave  the 
weightof  the  apostle's  sanction  to  a  statement  which  really  represents 
only  the  popular  belief.  It  will  be  seen  that,  when  the  unauthorised 
addition  is  removed,  there  is  nothing  in  the  text  to  support  the  im- 
pression that  wonderful  cures  were  actually  wrought.  The  phenomena 
are  those  of  an  intermittent  spring ;  and  the  various  circumstances 
described,  the  concourse  of  sick,  the  eager  expectation,  the  implicit 
faith  in  the  healing  virtue  of  the  Avaters  and  in  the  recur- 
ring supernatural  agency,  find  too  many  parallels  in  history  to 
make  it  necessary  to  suppose  that  there  was  any  supernatural  virtue 
in  the  pool.  It  may  be  observed  that  the  ordinary  translation  of  the 
added  words  is  not  quite  correct.  The  angel's  visit  was  not  looked  for 
'  at  a  certain  season  '  (as  if  after  some  fixed  and  regular  interval), 
but  '  at  seasons,'  from  time  to  time. 

Ver.  5.  And  a  certain  man  -was  there,  -who  had  been 
thirty  and  eight  years  in  his  sickness.  This  sufferer  (appar 
ently  one  of  the  '  withered,'  though  not  altogether  destitute  of   the 


5 :  6-8.]  JOHN  V.  Ill 


&^ 


6  years  in  his  infirmity.  AVhen  Jesus  saw  him  lying, 
and  knew  that  he  had  been  now  a  long  time  in  that 
case,    he   said    unto  him,  Wouldest   thou    be    made 

7  whole  ?  The  sick  man  answered  him.  ^Sir,  I  have 
no  man,  when  the  w^ater  is  troubled,  to  put  me  into 
the  pool ;    but  while  I  am  coming,  another  steppeth 

8  down  before  me.      Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Arise,  take 

lOr,  Lord. 

power  of  motion)  had  endured  thirty-eight  years  of  weakness.  How 
long  he  had  been  wont  to  resort  to  Bethesda  we  cannot  tell :  it  may 
have  been  only  for  days  or  even  hours. 

Ver.  6.  Jesus  seeing  him  lying  there,  and  perceiving 
that  he  hath  been  now  a  long  time  in  that  case,  saith 
unto  him.  Wilt  thou  be  made  -whole  ?  The  first  movement  is 
altogether  on  the  side  of  Jesus:  comp.  ver.  21  ('whom  He  will'). 
His  knowledge  of  the  case  is  by  direct  intuition  (comp.  2  :  25),  not,  as 
we  believe,  the  result  of  inquiry.  In  Matt.  8 :  2  the  leper's  words  to 
Jesus  were,  '  Lord,  if  Thou  wilt,  Thou  canst  make  me  clean,'  and  the 
answer  was,  '  I  will.'  Here  the  address  of  Jesus  contains  His  '  I  will,' 
for  His  question  to  the  man  is  '  Dost  thou  will  ?  if  thou  dost  I  do  also.' 
Jesus  has  the  will  to  heal  him  :  does  he  answer  this  with  a  correspond- 
ing will,  or  is  he  like  those  to  whom  Jesus  would  have  given  life,  but 
who  '  would  '  not  come  to  Him?  (ver.  40).  It  will  be  observed  that 
there  is  no  broad  separation  made  between  bodily  and  spiritual  heal- 
ing. The  man  certainly  understood  the  former,  but  we  cannot  limit 
the  meaning  of  Christ's  words  by  the  apprehension  of  those  to  whom 
He  speaks,  and  the  subsequent  narrative  seems  to  imply  more  than  the 
restoration  of  bodily  health. 

Yer.  7.  The  sick  man  answered  him,  Sir,  I  have  no 
man,  when  the  w^ater  hath  been  troubled,  to  put  me  into 
the  pool :  but  while  I  am  coming,  another  steppeth  down 
before  me.  The  man  does  not  give  a  direct  answer  to  the  question 
'  AVilt  thou  ?'  but  the  answer  sought  is  implied.  He  had  the  will,  but 
he  had  not  the  power  to  do  what  he  believed  must  be  done  before 
healing  could  be  obtained.  The  very  extremity  of  his  need  rendered 
unavailing  his  repeated  efforts  to  be  the  first  to  reach  the  waters  when 
the  mysterious  troubling  had  taken  place.  He  had  no  friend  to  help, 
to  hurry  him  to  the  pool  at  the  moment  when  the  waters  were  thought 
to  have  received  their  healing  power. 

Ver.  8.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Rise,  take  up  thy  bed, 
and  -walk.  The  cure  is  performed  in  the  most  simple  and  direct 
manner.  It  is  not  said  that  Jesus  laid  His  hands  on  him  (Luke  13: 
13),  or  that  He  touched  him.  He  speaks  :  the  man  hears  the  voice  of 
the  Son  of  God  and  Uves  (vers.  25,  28,  29). 


112  JOHN  V.  [5 :  9-10. 

9  up  thy  bed,  and  walk.     And  straightway  the   man 

was  made  whole,  and  took  up  his  bed  ajid  walked. 
10      Now  it  was  the  Sabbath  on  that  day.     So  the  Jews 
said  urito  him  that  was  cured,  It  is  the  sabbath,  and 

Yer.  9.  And  immediately  the  man  -was  made  -whole,  and 
took  up  his  bed,  and  -walked.  The  result  is  described  in  words 
"which  are  a  simple  echo  of  the  command.  Whilst  they  testify  the 
power  of  the  healing  word,  they  also  bring  into  view  the  man's  '  will' 
and  'faith,'  as  shown  in  his  immediate  readiness  to  obey  the  com- 
mand of  Jesus.  Immediately  he  was  made  whole,  and  took  up  his 
bed  (the  mattress  which  laid  upon  the  ground,  had  formed  his  bed), 
and  walked.— And  it  was  the  sabbath  on  that  day.  The  verses 
which  follow  show  how  in^portant  is  this  notice.  As  Jesus  chose  out 
this  one  sick  man  to  be  the  object  of  His  grace,  so  He  of  set  purpose 
chose  the  sabbath  day  for  the  performance  of  the  miracle. 

Ver.  10.  The  Jevrs  therefore  said  unto  him  that  -was 
cured,  It  is  the  sabbath  day,  and  it  is  pot  lawful  for  thee  to 
take  up  the  bed.  The  Jews — some  of  the  rulers  of  the  people 
(see  note  on  1  :  19)  — who  had  not  been  present  at  the  miracle  met 
the  man  as  he  departed  carrying  his  bed.  As  guardians  of  the  law 
they  challenge  him,  and  condemn  the  bearing  of  burdens  on  the  sab- 
bath. It  is  very  important  for  us  to  determine  whether  in  so  doing 
they  were  right  or  wrong.  Were  they  fiithfully  carrying  out  the  let- 
ter of  the  law  of  Moses,  or  were  they  enforcing  one  of  those  tradi- 
tions by  which  they  destroyed  its  spirit  ?  We  have  no  hesitation  in 
adopting  the  former  view.  The  question  must  be  decided  apart  from 
the  miracle,  of  which  at  this  moment  the  Jews  seem  to  have  had  no 
knowledge.  It  is  true  that,  even  had  it  been  known  by  them,  their 
judgment  would  not  have  been  altered ;  they  would  have  equally 
condemned  the  healing  on  the  sabbath  (see  Luke  13  :  14),  since  there 
had  been  no  question  of  life  and  death.  When,  too,  they  afterwards 
hear  what  has  been  done  (ver.  11)  there  is  no  change  in  their  tone 
and  spirit;  and  our  Lord's  own  reference  to  this  miracle  (chap.  7: 
28)  seems  to  show  that,  so  far  from  convincing  them,  it  had  roused 
their  special  indignation.  But  at  the  point  of  time  now  before  us  the 
lawfulness  of  healing  on  the  sabbath  was  not  in  question.  They  met 
a  man  carrying  his  bed  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem  on  the  sacred  day. 
The  law  of  Moses  forbade  any  work  on  that  day  ;  and  the  special 
enactments  in  the  Pentateuch  (the  command  to  kindle  no  fire,  Ex.  35  : 
3,  and  the  judgment  on  the  man  who  gathered  sticks,  Num.  15:  35) 
show  how  this  law  was  to  be  interpreted.  In  Jer.  17:  21-23,  more- 
over (comp.  Neh.  13:  19),  this  very  act,  the  bearing  of  burdens,  is 
explicitly  condemned.  What  could  they  do  but  condemn  it  ?  Would 
the  same  act  be  regarded  otherwise  in  England  at  the  present  hour  ? 
One  other  consideration  remains,  and  it  is  decisive.  Our  Lord's  an- 
swer to  the  Jews  (ver.  17)  makes  no  reference  to  their  casuistical  dis-  ■ 


5:  11-13.]  JOHN  V.  113 

11  it  is  not  lawful  for  thee  to  take  up  thy  bed.     But  he 
answered   tliem,  He  that   made  me  whole,  the  same 

12  said    unto  me,  Take   up  thy  bed   and   walk.    They 
asked  him,  A\'ho  is  the  man  that  saith  unto  thee,  Take 

13  up  thy  bed  and  walk  ?    But  he  that  was  healed  wist 

tinctions  or  to  traditions  by  which  the  law  was  overlaid.  It  differs  al- 
together in  tone  and  spirit  from  the  reproofs  which  we  read  in  Luke 
V6  :  15;  14:  5.  Had  their  objection  lain  against  the  healing,  we 
cannot  doubt  that  they  would  have  brought  on  themselves  the  like  re- 
buke :  here  however  they  were  right  in  holding  the  man's  action,  so 
far  as  they  understood  it  at  the  moment,  to  be  an  infraction  of  their 
law. 

Yer.  11.  But  he  ans-wered  them,  He  that  made  me  -whole, 
the  same  said  unto  me,  Take  up  thy  bed,  and -walk.  Whether 
the  man  knew  the  Kabbinical  saying  that  a  prophet's  command  to 
transgress  the  letter  of  the  law  was  to  be  obeyed,  save  in  the  case  of 
idolatry,  may  be  doubted ;  but  the  impression  made  on  him  by  the 
majesty  of  Jesus  was  sufficient  to  guide  his  answer.  Divine  power 
had  healed  him  :  a  command  from  One  who  wielded  such  power  could 
not  transgre-s  the  law  of  God. 

Ver.  12.  They  asked  him,  "Who  is  the  man  -who  said  un- 
to thee.  Take  up,  and  walk  ?  The  mention  of  the  cure  has  no 
effect  in  leading  them  to  suspend  their  judgment.  It  would  indeed 
present  to  them  a  new  transgression  of  the  law ;  but  they  content 
themselves  with  passing  it  by,  and  laying  stress  on  what  they  con- 
sider an  undeniable  breach  of  the  very  letter  of  the  commandment. 
This  complete  indifference  to  the  work  of  mercy  plainly  illustrates 
the  hard-hearted  malice  of  '  the  Jews.' 

Ver.  lo.  But  he  that  -was  healed  knew  not  who  it  was. 
We  need  not  wonder  that  this  man,  unable  to  move  from  place  to 
place,  perhaps  only  recently  come  to  Jerusalem,  had  no  previous 
knowledge  of  Jesus. — For  Jesus  withdrew  himself,  a  multi- 
tude being  in  that  place.  After  his  cure,  too,  he  could  hear 
nothing  of  his  benefactor,  for,  to  avoid  the  recognition  and  enthu.siasm 
of  the  multitude  (comp.  chap.  6:  15),  Jesus  withdrew, — literally 
'  slipped  aside,'  became  suddenly  lost  to  sight. — Here,  as  always,  the 
'  multitude '  or  mass  of  the  people  is  to  be  carefully  distinguished 
from  '  the  Jews.'  The  conflict  between  Jesus  and  the  Jews  has  begun : 
all  His  actions  deepen  their  hatred  against  Him,  The  '  multitude,'  on 
the  other  hand,  is  the  object  of  His  compassion:  from  time  to  time 
they  follow  Him  eagerly,  however  slight  may  be  their  knowledge  of 
His  true  teaching  and  aims  (6  :  2,  15).  In  subsequent  chapters  we 
shall  often  have  to  call  attention  to  the  contrast  between  '  the  Jews ' 
and  the  '  multitude  ;'  and  it  will  be  seen  that  some  passages  are  almost 
inexplicable  unless  this  most  important  distinction  is  kept  clearly  in 
view. 

8 


114  JOHN  V.  [5 :  14-16. 

not  who    it  was :    for  Jesus  had  conveyed  himself 

14  away,  a  multitude  being  in  the  place.  Afterward 
Jesus  findeth  him  in  the  temple,  aud  said  unto  him, 
Behold,  thou  art  made  whole  :  sin   no  more,  lest   a 

15  worse  thing  befall  thee.  The  man  went  away,  and 
told  the  Jews   that   it   was   Jesus  which    had  made 

16  him  whole.  And  for  this  cause  did  the  Jews  per- 
secute Jesus,   because  he    did    these    things   on  the 

Ver.  14.  After  these  things  Jesus  findeth  him  in  the  temple 
courts.  Some  time  afterwards,  probably  not  on  the  same  day,  the  man 
is  found  in  the  temple  courts.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  had 
gone  there  for  purposesof  devotion,  having  recognised  the  Divine  deli- 
verance. Throughout  the  narrative  he  stands  in  strong  contrast  with 
the  Jews,  resembling  in  this  the  blind  man  of  whom  we  read  in  chap.  9. 
—And  said  unto  him,  Behold,  thou  hast  been  made  whole : 
sin  no  longer,  that  some  -worse  thing  come  not  unto  thee. 
The  words  of  Jesus  imply  much  more  than  the  general  connection  of 
sin  and  suffering ;  they  show  that  in  this  case  the  sickness  had  in 
some  way  been  the  result  and  the  punishment  of  sin.  Yet  sorer  judg- 
ment will  follow  a  return  to  the  life  of  sin  (Matt.  12  :  45). 

Ver.  15.  The  man  went  away,  and  told  the  Jews  that  it 
was  Jesus  w^ho  had  made  him  whole.  The  Jews  asked  who 
had  commanded  him  to  take  vp  his  bed.  The  man's  reply,  given  as 
soon  as  he  had  leaint  the  name  of  his  Deliverer,  was  that  Jesus  had 
made  him  whole.  The  careful  variation  in  the  expression  seems  to 
repel  the  supposition  that  he  gave  the  information  through  ingratitude 
or  in  treachery.  Probably  his  motive  was  a  sense  of  duty  to  those 
■who,  whatever  might  be  their  spirit,  were  constituted  authorities  who 
had  a  right  to  be  satisfied  as  to  all  breaches  of  the  law,  with  whom 
also  would  rest  the  decision  whether  he  must  bring  a  siji-oflFering  to 
atone  for  his  violation  of  the  sabbath.  Whilst,  however,  this  may  have 
been  the  man's  motive,  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  John  (who  here  uses 
a  word,  '  declared,'  which  with  him  often  has  a  solemn  significance) 
sees  in  the  act  a  Divine  mission.  In  his  eyes  the  man  is  for  the  mo- 
ment a  prophet  of  the  Most  High,  a  messenger  of  warning,  to  the 
guilty  Jews. 

Ver.  16.  And  for  this  cause  did  the  Jews  persecute  Jesus, 
because  he  did  these  things  on  the  sabbath  day.  The  man 
whose  cure  had  been  the  occasion  of  the  action  taken  by  the  Jews 
now  passes  from  view.  For  the  second  time  Jesus  and  '  the  Jews'  are 
brought  fiice  to  face.  He  had  appeared  in  the  temple  (2  :  14)  to  put 
an  end  to  the  abuses  they  had  permitted  or  fostered,  and  to  vindicate 
the  holiness  of  His  Father's  house.  Then  He  offered  Himself  to  Is- 
rael as  the  Son  of  God;  He  declared  Himself  the  antitype  of  their 
temple,  the  idea  of  which  (as  God's  dwelling-place)  had  its  fulfilment 


S:  17.]  JOHN  V.  115 

17  sabbath.      But   Jesus    answered   them,   My   Father 

in  Himself  alone.  As  by  supernatural  influence  on  those  who  trafficked 
in  the  Holy  Place  He  had  then  challenged  the  attention  of  the  rulers 
of  Israel,  so  now  by  a  wonderful  sign  He  fixed  on  Himself  the  eyes  of 
all  (7 :  21).  This  time  it  is  not  on  the  temple  that  He  lays  His  hand, 
but  the  law,  the  cherished  commandment  of  the  sabbath.  It  is  not  as 
one  who  with  authority  checks  abuses  which  none  could  defend, 
though  many  derived  gain,  that  our  Lord  now  appears  in  Jerusalem : 
He  comes  as  one  who  claims  to  be  above  the  law,  having  the  right,  as 
Lawgiver,  to  set  aside  its  letter.  As  the  temple  had  its  idea  fulfilled 
in  Himself,  so  was  it  with  the  sabbath.  As  to  the  Son  of  God  God's 
house  belonged,  so  to  the  Son  of  God  belonged  that  Rest  of  God  of 
which  the  sabbath  was  a  type ;  and  the  sabbath  cannot  be  broken  by 
the  Son  of  God.  This  is  the  light  in  which  the  following  verses  teach 
us  to  regard  the  whole  narrative.  The  choice  of  the  sabbath  day  for 
the  miracle  is  the  kernel  of  the  paragraph.  Had  the  Jews  been  teacha- 
ble and  free  from  prejudice,  had  they  taken  the  miracle  as  the  start- 
ing-point of  their  reasonings,  they  would  have  been  prepared  for 
hearing  the  ground  of  the  claims  of  Jesus  thus  to  regulate  their  law. 
'  How  can  a  man  that  is  a  sinner  do  such  miracles  ?'  (9  :  16)  was  in 
truth  a  convincing  argument,  and  by  yielding  to  its  force  they  would 
have  been  led  to  Jesus  as  humble  seekers  after  truth.  But  because 
He  '  did  these  things,'  wrought  such  works  and  showed  that  He  would 
persevere  with  them,  they  became  and  continued  to  be  His  persecutors. 
Ver.  17.  But  he  answered  them,  My  Father  -worketh  un- 
til now  :  I  also  work.  In  three  different  ways  does  our  Lord  re- 
but the  charge  which  His  foes  so  often  brought  against  Him,  that  He 
broke  the  sabbath.  At  one  time  He  showed  that  it  was  not  the  law 
but  the  vain  tradition  that  He  set  aside  (Matt.  12  :  11  ;  Luke  13  :  15  ; 
14  :  5)  ;  at  another  He  declared  Himself  as  the  Son  of  man  Lord  of  the 
sabbath,  and  taught  that  the  law  of  the  sabbath  must  be  determined 
from  its  aim  and  object  (Mark  2  :  27,28);  here  only  does  He  take 
even  higher  gi-ound.  God  rested  from  His  works  of  creation  on  the 
seventh  day  ;  this  day  was  hallowed  and  set  apart  for  man's  rest  from 
labor, — a  rest  which  was  the  shadow  of  the  rest  of  God,  and  which 
was  designed  to  remove  from  man  everything  that  might  hinder  him 
from  entering  in  spirit  into  that  fellowship  with  God  which  is  perfect 
rest.  From  the  creation  to  this  very  inoment  the  Father  hath  been 
working  ;  in  His  very  rest  upholding  all  things  by  the  word  of  His 
power,  providing  all  things  for  His  creatures,  working  out  the  purpose 
of  His  love  in  their  redemption.  '  My  Father  worketh  until  now,' 
with  no  pause  or  intermission  :  '  I  also  work.'  He  who  can  thus  call 
God  His  Father  finds  in  the  works  of  His  Father  the  law  of  His  own 
works.  No  works  of  the  Father  can  interrupt  the  sabbath  rest :  no 
works  of  the  Son  on  earth  can  break  the  sabbath  law.  The  19th  and 
20th  verses  more  fully  explain  what  is  expressed  in  these  majestic 
words. 


116  JOHN  V.  [5:18,19. 


18  worketh  even  until  now,  and  I  work.  For  this 
cause  therefore  the  Jcavs  sought  the  more  to  kill 
him,  because  he  not  only  brake  the  sabbath,  but 
also  called  God  his  own  Father,  making  himself 
equal  with  God. 

Chapter  5:  19-47. 
The  Discourse  of  Jesus  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda, 

19  Jesus  therefore  answered  and  said  unto  them, 
Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The  Son  can  do 

Ver.  18,  For  this  cause  therefore  the  Jews  sought  the 
more  to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  broke  the  sabbath, 
but  also  called  God  his  own  Father,  making  himself  equal 
with  God.  The  Jews  do  not  fail  to  see  that  the  argument  rested  on 
the  first  words,  '  My  Father.'  He  who  could  thus  speak,  and  who 
justified  His  works  by  the  works  of  God,  was  calling  God  His  own 
Father  in  the  highest  sense  which  these  words  can  bear,  and  was  claim- 
ing equality  with  God.  It  has  been  objected  that,  though  the  brief  asser- 
tion of  ver.  17  does  really  imply  all  this,  it  is  not  probable  that  so 
momentous  an  inference  would  have  been  drawn  from  words  so  few. 
But  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that,  whilst  John  gives  to  us  the  exact  sub- 
stance of  the  words  of  Jesus  and  the  impression  which  they  made 
upon  the  hearers  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  all  the  words 
spoken  are  recorded.  The  meaning  which  we  gather  from  those  that 
stand  written  before  us  probably  could  not  be  conveyed  by  spoken 
words  without  repetition  and  enlargement.  The  thought  of  the  con- 
densation which  must  have  taken  place  in  the  record  of  these  dis- 
courses of  our  Lord  is  that  which  fully  justifies  the  devout  reader's  ef- 
fort to  catch  every  shade  of  meaning  and  follow  every  turn  of  expres- 
sion.— The  answer  Jesus  has  given  does  but  repel  the  Jews.  We  are 
told  what  the  persecution  of  ver,  16  meant, — even  then  they  had 
sought  His  life,  for  now  they  sought  the  more  to  kill  Him.  From  this 
point  onwards  we  have  the  conflict  that  nothing  could  reconcile,  the 
enmity  of  the  Jews  which  would  not  and  could  not  rest  until  they  had 
compassed  the  death  of  Him  who  had  come  to  save  them. 

The  Discourse  of  Jesus  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda.  Vers.    19-47. 

Contents.  The  performance  of  the  miracle  of  healing  on  the  sabbath  had  roused 
the  active  opposition  of  the  Jews  to  Jesus,  and  that  again  had  led  to  the  great  declar- 
ation contained  in  ver.  17,  in  which  Jesus  announces  His  equalitj'  with  God.  This 
announcement  only  excites  the  Jews  to  greater  rage  ;  and  Jesus  is  thus  led,  according 
to  His  custom  in  this  Gospel,  to  present  in  still  fuller  and  more  forcible  terms  the 
truth  by  which  their  anger  and  opposition  had  been  aroused.  The  discourse  may  bo 
divided  into  three  subordinate  parts — (1)  vers.  19-29,  where,  with  a  thrice  repeated 


5:  10.]  JOHN  V.  117 

nothing  of  himself,   but  what  he  seeth   the   Father 
doing:    for   what  things  soever  he  doeth,  these  tiie 

*  Verily,  verily '  (the  progress  of  the  thought  is  pointed  out  in  the  Exposition),  Jesus 
speaks  of  Himself  as  the  Worker  of  the  Father's  works,  the  Revealer  of  the  Father's 
glory ;  (2)  ver.  30,  a  verse  at  once  summing  up  what  has  preceded  from  ver.  19,  a^Jd 
introducing  the  remainder  of  the  discourse ;  (3)  vers.  31-47,  where  Jesus  passes 
from  the  '  greater  works  '  that  He  does  to  the  witness  borne  to  Him  by  the  Father, 
pointing  out  at  the  same  time  the  true  nature  of  the  evil  principles  within  the  Jews 
'Which  prevented  their  receiving  that  witness. 

Ver.  19.     Jesus   therefore  answered  and  said  unto  them. 

We  have  already  found  Jesus  replj'iug  to  those  who  did  not  receive 
His  utterance  of  a  truth  by  a  repeated  and  more  emphatic  declaration 
of  the  very  truth  which  they  rejected  (see  3:5)  So  it  is  here.  He 
had  been  accused  of  blasphemy  in  calling  God  *  His  own  Father '  and 
making  Himself  equal  with  God.  He  solemnly  reiterates  His  claim, 
and  expresses  with  greater  force  the  unity  of  His  working  with  the 
working  of  God  His  Father. — Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
The  Son  can  of  himself  do  nothing  save  what  he  seeth 
the  Father  doing :  for  what  things  soever  he  doeth,  these 
things  the  Son  also  in  like  manner  doeth.  The  connection 
of  this  verse  with  the  preceding  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  preclude  the 
interpretation  which  some  have  given, — that  it  has  reference  to  the 
perfect  obedience  of  the  Son  of  man  rather  than  to  the  essential  one- 
ness of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  Father.  The  last  words  of  the  verse 
express  the  general  positive  truth  that  all  the  Father's  works  are  done 
by  the  Son,  and  done  by  Him  in  like  manner,  while  the  mystery  con- 
tained in  them  is  not  greater  than  that  which  is  inherent  in  every 
statement  relating  to  the  Trinity.  It  is  the  Son's  part  to  make  the 
Father's  works  take  the  shape  of  actual  realities  among  men.  The 
Father's  working  and  the  Son's  working  are  thus  not  two  different 
workings,  and  they  are  not  a  working  of  the  same  thing  twice.  They 
are  related  to  each  other  as  the  ideal  to  the  phenomenal,  as  the 
thought  to  the  word.  The  Father  does  not  work  actually ,  He  works 
always  iAroM^A  the  Son.  The  Son  does  not  \i ork  ideality ;  He  works 
always /rom  the  Father.  But  God  is  always  working ;  therefore  the 
Son  is  always  working ;  and  the  works  of  the  Father  are  the  works 
of  the  Son, — distinct,  yet  one  and  the  same.  From  this  positive  truth 
follows  the  denial  which  comes  earlier  in  the  verse.  The  Jews  had  de- 
nounced .Jesus  as  a  blasphemer,  had  thought  that  He  was  placing  Him- 
self in  lawful  opposition  to  God.  This  is  impossible,  for  the  Son  can 
do  nothing  of  Himself;  severance  from  the  Father  in  action  is  im- 
possible, how  much  more  contrariety  of  action !  The  Son  can  do  noth- 
ing of  Himself, — can  indeed  do  nothing  save  what  He  seeth  the  Fa- 
ther doing.  The  subordination  of  the  Son,  which  subsists  together 
with  perfect  unity,  is  expressed  in  the  former  half  of  the  verse  by  the 

*  seeing,'  in  the  latter  by  the  order  of  the  clauses.  The  whole  verse  is 
a  tralislation  of  the  truth  expressed  in  the  Prologue  (vers.  1,  18). 


118  JOHN  V.  [5:  20. 

20  Son   also  doeth   in  like    manner.      For  the  Father 
loveth  the   Son,  and  showeth    him    all   things  that 

Ver.  20.  For  the  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  showeth 
him  all  things  that  himself  doeth.  The  relation  of  the 
Son's  acts  to  those  of  the  Father  has  been  connected  with  the  figure 
of  '  seeing  :' the  converse  is  here  presented,  as  '  showing.'  The  Fa- 
ther *  showeth  '  what  Himself  doeth  ;  the  Son  '  seeth.'  The  principle 
of  the  relation  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  out  of  which  this 
communion  springs,  is  'love,' — an  eternal  and  continuous  and  infinite 
love,  the  source  of  an  eternal  and  continuous  and  perfect  communion. 
The  same  English  words  have  occurred  before,  in  chap.  3 :  35 ;  but 
the  original  expression  is  not  the  same.  AVe  shall  have  occasion  in 
several  passages  to  notice  the  two  Greek  words  in  question,  which,  as 
a  rule,  must  be  rendered  by  the  same  English  word,  '  love.'  Starting 
from  the  use  of  the  words  between  man  and  man,  we  may  say  that  the 
one  ((ptMo)  denotes  rather  the  tender  emotional  aflFection,  that  the 
other  {dyan-do})  is  never  dissociated  from  intellectual  preference,  es- 
teem, choice.  The  one  term  is  not  necessarily  stronger  than  the 
other.  The  latter  may  be  more  exalted,  as  implying  the  result  of  in- 
telligence and  knowledge  ;  the  former  may  be  more  expressive,  as  im- 
plying a  closer  bond  and  a  warmer  feeling.  The  first  word  is  most  in 
place  when  the  two  who  are  united  by  love  stand  more  nearly  on  the 
same  level,  the  second  is  commonly  used  when  there  is  disparity.  The 
former  occurs  thirteen  times  only  in  this  Gospel ;  once  of  tlie  Father's 
love  towards  the  Son  (here),  and  once  of  His  consequent  love  to  those 
whose  who  love  the  Son  (16  :  27) ;  three  times  of  the  love  of  Jesus 
towards  His  disciples,  and  six  times  of  their  love  to  Him  ;  the  other 
two  passages  are  12  :  25  ('  he  that  loveth  his  life  ')  and  15  :  19  ('  the 
world  would  love  its  own  ').  It  does  not  occur  in  John's  Epistles,  and 
twice  only  in  the  Apocalypse  (3:  19  ;  22:  15).  On  the  other  hand, 
the  latter  word  occurs  no  fewer  than  thirty-seven  times  in  John's  Gos- 
pel and  thirty  times  in  his  Epistles.  In  the  Gospel  it  is  used  seven 
times  of  the  love  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  once  of  the  love  of 
God  to  the  world  (3  :  16),  and  three  times  of  the  Father's  love  to  those 
who  are  Christ's ;  eleven  times  of  the  love  of  Jesus  towards  His  own ; 
nine  times  of  their  love  towards  Him,  and  four  times  of  the  mutual 
love  of  the  disciples.  In  the  remaining  passages  (3  :  19  and  12:  43)  it 
denotes  preference  or  choice.  The  fitness  of  the  employment  of  the 
two  words  is  very  clear  in  almost  all  these  instances.  The  first  class 
is  that  with  which  we  are  now  concerned,  both  words  being  used  to 
denote  the  love  existing  between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  The  par- 
ticular passages  will  be  noticed  as  they  occur,  but  the  verse  before  us 
and  chap.  3  :  35  are  suflBcient  to  show  clearly  the  general  principle 
ruling  this  whole  class.  Here,  as  the  context  brings  into  relief  the  es- 
sential relation  between  the  Son  and  the  Father,  that  word  is  chosen 
which  most  befits  the  unity  of  their  Being.  In  3  :  35,  again,  the  con- 
text fiLxes  our  attention  on  Him  whom  God  hath  '  sent ;'   not  the"  es- 


5:  21].  JOHN  V.  119 

himself  doeth  :    and   greater  works   than  these  will 
21  he  shew   him,   that    ye  may   marvel.      For   as  the 

sence  but  the  work  of  the  Son  is  the  leading  thought, — not  the  Word 
*  in  the  beginning  with  God,'  but  the  Only-begotten  Son  given  that  the 
world  might  be  saved :  the  other  word,  therefore,  is  there  used. — 
And  he  ■will  shew  him  greater  vrorks  than  these.  The  word 
'  showeth  '  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse  includes  all  time  :  here  the 
future  tense  is  used,  not  as  pointing  to  a  change  in  the  relation  of  the  i- 
Son  to  the  Father,  as  if  the  'showing'  and  the  'seeing'  would  in  the 
future  grow  in  completeness  and  intensity,  but  only  because  the  eter- 
nal purpose  of  the  Father  for  mankind  is  fulfilled  in  time,  and  be- 
cause the  Saviour  is  looking  at  successive  stages  of  His  work,  as  de- 
veloped in  human  history. — The  '  greater  works '  must  not  be  under- 
stood to  mean  simply  greater  acts,  more  wonderful  miracles,  all  that 
we  commonly  understand  by  the  miracles  of  Jesus  being  rather  com- 
prehended under  the  word  '  these.'  Further,  our  Lord  does  not  say 
'  greater  works  than  this '  miracle,  but  greater  works  than  'these:' 
and  lastly,  to  compare  one  of  the  Saviour's  miraculous  deeds  with 
another,  to  divide  them  into  greater  and  less,  is  altogether  foreign  to 
the  spirit  of  the  Gospels.  The  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  'greater 
works'  is  given  by  the  following  verses  ;  they  include  the  raising  of 
the  dead,  the  giving  of  life,  the  judgment. — That  ye  may  marvel. 
The  design  of  these  greater  works,  of  this  higher  and  more  complete 
manifestation  of  Jesus,  is  '  that  ye  may  marvel.'  '  Ye  '  as  through- 
out this  discourse,  is  an  address  to  those  who  opposed  Him,  who 
would  not  come  to  Him  who  refused  to  believe  His  words.  The  mean- 
ing of  '  marvel,'  therefore,  does  not  differ  from  that  which  we  observed 
in  chap.  3:7:  it  is  not  the  wonder  of  admiration  and  faith,  but  the 
marvelling  of  astonishment  and  awe. 

Yer.  21.  For  even  as  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and 
maketh  to  live,  so  the  Son  also  maketh  to  live  -whom  he 
will.  This  verse  begins  the  explanation  of  the  '  greater  works ' 
which  the  Father  '  will  shew  '  unto  the  Son.  In  speaking  of  Ihese, 
however,  the  present  not  the  future  tense  is  used,  for  some  of  them 
are  even  now  present  in  their  beginnings,  though  future  in  their  com- 
plete manifestation.  The  first  example  of  these  works  of  the  Father, 
which  '  the  Son  also  doeth  in  like  manner,'  is  raising  up  the  dead  and 
making  to  live.  Are  the  words  to  be  understood  in  their  ordinary 
sense,  or  are  they  figurative  ?  This  question  can  only  be  answered  from 
the  context.  On  one  side  ver.  25  is  decisive,  death  being  there  used 
of  a  spiritual  state,  and  not  with  a  physical  reference  only.  On  the 
other  hand,  ver.  28  unquestionably  speaks  of  the  raising  of  the  dead 
out  of  their  graves.  As,  therefore,  the  verses  which  follow  ver.  21 
certainly  contain  an  expansion  and  exposition  of  the  first  words  of  the 
discourse  (vers.  17,  19-21),  the  general  terms  of  ver.  21  must  be  em- 
ployed in  their  widest  sense,  including  both  a  physical  and  a  spiritual 
resurrection  and  gift  of  life.     This  is  the  more  natural,  as  the  miracle 


120  JOHN  V.  [5:  22. 

Father  raiseth  the   dead   and  quickeneth  them,  even 
22  so   the  Son  also   quickeneth   whom    he  will.      For 

of  healing  has  been  the  fountain  of  the  discourse,  and  we  have  seen 
that  in  such  miracles  of  our  Lord  the  physical  and  spiritual  worlds 
are  in  a  remarkable  way  brought  together. — The  work  spoken  of  is  di- 
vided into  two  parts,  the  raising  and  the  giving  of  life.  The  former 
word  '  raising'  is  that  used  in  ver.  8  ('  Rise '),  and  is  the  first  part  of 
the  command  which  then  gave  life.  It  is  the  word  rendered  '  awake  ' 
in  Eph.  5 :  14,  a  passage  which  the  verse  before  us  at  once  recalls. 
Whether  used  literally  or  in  reference  to  a  spiritual  resurrection,  it 
denotes  the  first  step  in  the  process  of  '  making  to  live.'  Either  word 
might  stand  by  itself  to  indicate  the  work :  neither  in  2  Cor.  1 :  9, 
*God  which  raiseth  the  dead,'  nor  in  Rom.  4:  17,  '  God  who  maketh 
the  dead  to  live,'  is  an  imperfect  act  described.  But  the  description 
is  more  vivid  here,  as  we  see  first  the  transition  and  then  the  com- 
pleted gift.  In  the  language  of  this  Gospel,  '  life '  has  so  deep  a  sig- 
nificance that '  maketh  to  live'  must  not  be  limited  to  the  initial  *  quick- 
ening,'— it  is  the  whole  communication  of  the  fulness  of  life.  If  this 
view  be  correct,  we  can  find  no  difiiculty  in  the  omission  of  the  word 

*  raiseth '  in  the  second  half  of  the  verse.  Once  mentioned,  it  pre- 
sents the  work  of  giving  life  so  vividly,  that  afterwards  the  one  word 

*  maketh  to  live  '  is  sufficient  to  bear  all  the  meaning.  So  in  ver.  8 
and  ver.  11.  The  command  to  the  sick  man  had  been,  *  Rise  and  .  .  . 
walk:'  when  the  result  is  described  and  the  command  related  by  him 
who  has  been  healed,  nothing  is  said  of  the  arising,  for  it  is  included 
in  the  gift  of  life.  God  '  maketh  alive'  (Deut.  32  :  89  ;  1  Sam.  2:6): 
'  God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  life '  (1  John  5  :  11).  However  under- 
stood, whether  physically  or  spiritually,  this  is  the  work  of  the 
Father ;  both  in  the  physical  and  in  the  spiritual  sense,  it  is  also,  we 
now  learn,  the  work  of  the  Son.  In  one  respect  the  later  part  of  the 
verse  is  not  less  but  more  detailed  than  the  earlier.  No  one  can  doubt 
that  '  whom  He  will '  lies  implicitly  in  the  first  words,  but  the  thought 
is  expressed  in  regard  to  the  Son  only ;  and  the  best  illustration  of  it 
as  applied  to  Him  is  given  by  the  narrative  itself.  Amongst  the  crowd 
of  sick  Jesus  chose  out  one  especially  wretched  and  consciously  help- 
less, and  bestowed  on  him  the  free  gift  of  life.  So  (Matt,  11 :  25)  the 
wise  and  prudent  are  passed  by,  and  babes  are  the  objects  of  the 
Father's  merciful  will.  The  Son's  will  is  the  manifestation  of  the 
Father's  purpose.  There  is  no  suggestion  of  an  absolute  decree.  The 
cure  of  the  sick  man  was  to  a  certain  extent  dependent  on  his  own 
will :  '  Hast  thou  a  will  to  be  made  whole?'  (ver.  6).  The  same  will 
to  be  quickened  is  necessary  to  all  to  whom  the  will  to  qviicken  on  the 
part  of  the  Son  extends.  What  is  the  source  of  the  will  in  thgm  is  a 
question  not  raised  :  enough  that  the  light  appears  and  they  are  at- 
ti-acted  to  the  light  and  open  their  hearts  to  receive  it. 

Ver.  22.     For   moreover   the  Father  judgeth  no  one,  but 
hath  given  aU  judgment  unto  the  Son.     This   verse  must  be 


5 :  23.]  JOHN  V.  121 

neither  doth  the  Father  judge  any  man,  but  he  hath 

23  given  all    judgement    unto  the  Son :    that  all    may 

honor    the    Son,   even  as    they   honor    the   Father. 

taken  in  connection  with  the  19th,  '  The  Son  can  of  Himself  do  noth- 
ing save  what  He  seeth  the  Fathei-  doing.'  By  thus  connecting  the  two 
verses,  it  becomes  phiin  that  our  Lord  does  not  assert  that  judgment 
is  not  in  a  certain  sense  exercised  by  the  Father,  but  that  the  Father 
has  not  reserved  judgment  to  Himself, — that  with  all  other  things,  it 
too  is  given  unto  the  Son.  The  Father  showeth  the  Son  all  things  that 
Himself  doeth  :  from  this  complete  manifestation  nothing  is  excepted, 
— not  even  that  final  arbitrament  which  is  the  prerogative  of  the  Su- 
preme. Hence  there  is  no  contradictio a  bet^veea  this  verse  and  ver. 
30  below,  where  Jesus  says,  '  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing;  as  I 
hear,  I  judge  ;'  nor  will  8  :  50  present  any  difficulty.  By  'judgment,' 
as  in  chap.  3:17,  18,  19,  we  must  certainly  understand  a  judgment 
that  issues  in  condemnation  :  the  parallelism  between  3  :  18,  '  He  that 
believeth  in  Him  is  not  judged,'  and  ver.  24,  '  He  that  heareth  my 
word  and  believeth  Him  that  sent  me  hath  eternal  life,  and  cometh  not 
into  judgment,'  is  remarkably  close.  All  judgment,  future  and  pres- 
ent, the  final  award  with  all  that  foreshadows  it,  the  Father  hath  given, 
by  a  bestowal  which  can  never  be  revoked,  unto  the  Son.  The  con- 
nection between  the  22d  and  the  21st  verses  is  now  plain.  The  Son 
maketh  to  live  whom  He  will ;  but  there  are  some  on  whom  He  does 
not  bestow  life  (compare  ver.  40) ;  them  therefore  He  judges,  He  con- 
demns,— for  not  even  is  this  Divine  prerogative  withholden  from  Him; 
nay,  all  judgment  hath  been  given  unto  the  Son. 

Ver.  23.  That  all  may  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor 
the  Father.  These  words  express  the  purpose  of  the  Father  in  giv- 
ing all  judgment  to  the  Son.  They  remind  us  of  the  closing  words  of 
ver.  20,  which  also  express  His  purpose,  but  there  is  a  significant  dif- 
ference between  the  two  verses.  There  we  read,  *  that  ye  may  mar- 
vel,' here  '  that  all  may  honor  :'  there  it  is  the  confusion  and  amaze- 
ment of  foes,  here  it  is  the  honor  rendered  by  all  whether  foes  or 
friends.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  'judgment'  of  ver.  22  implies 
condemnation,  and  that,  by  consequence,  this  verse  might  seem  to  re- 
late to  foes  only  and  not  obedient  subjects  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
But  the  'all '  is  rightly  introduced,  for  when  judgment  has  compelled 
the  honor  of  unwilling  adoration,  much  more  may  it  be  expected  that 
willing  hearts  will  see  the  unity  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  will 
honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father.  He  that  honoreth 
not  the  Son,  honoreth  not  the  Father  who  sent  him.  It  was 
in  their  zeal  for  the  honor  of  the  Father,  as  they  supposed,  that  the 
Jews  refused  to  honor  Him  who  was  God's  Son.  But  so  ti'uly  one  are 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  that  all  who  dishonor  the  Son  dishonor  the 
Father.  The  Father  orders  all  things  as  He  does  that  He  whom  He 
sent  into  the  world  may  receive  equal  honor  with  Himself ;  and  all 
■who  refuse  honor  to  the  Son  resist  the  Father's  purpose.     Similar 


122  JOHN  V.  [5 :  24,  25. 

He  that  honoureth  not  the  Son,  honoureth  not  the 

24  Father  which  sent  him.     Yerily,  verily,  I    say  unto 
•     you,  He   that   heareth  my   word,  and  believeth  him 

that  sent  me,  hath  eternal    life,  and  cometh  not  into 
judgement,  but   hath  passed  out  of    death  into  life. 

25  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  The  hour  cometh,  and 
now  is,  when  the  dead  shall   hear  the  voice  of  thei 

words  are  found  in  one  of  the  earlier  Gospels  (Luke  10  :  16),  yet  no 
teaching  is  more  characteristic  of  the  fourth. 

Ver.  24.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The  second  '  Verily, 
verily,'  introducing  the  second  step  in  the  argument. — He  that 
heareth  my  word,  and  believeth  Him  that  sent  me,  hath 
eternal  life,  and  cometh  not  into  judgment,  but  hath 
passed  out  of  death  into  life.  This  verse  has  a  close  connection  . 
with  the  last,  the  words  *  Him  that  sent  me  '  taking  up  the  similar 
words  in  ver.  23  ;  and  these  who  by  hearing  Christ's  words  give  honor 
to  the  Father  being  set  over  against  those  who  were  there  spoken  of 
as  dishonoring  the  Father.  But  the  verse  has  also  a  very  important 
connection  with  the  three  preceding  verses.  They  have  stated  the 
work  of  the  Son  as  it  has  been  given  Him  by  the  Father ;  this  states  the 
work  in  its  effect  tipon  believers.  The  comparison  of  the  terms  employed 
in  the  several  verses  is  very  instructive,  and  the  advance  from  a  prin- 
ciple asserted  of  the  Son  to  the  same  principle  viewed  in  its  applica- 
tion to  men  is  most  perceptible.  The  Son  maketh  to  live  the  dead, 
even  those  whom  He  will  (ver.  21) :  he  that  heareth  His  word  hath 
eternal  life,  and  hath  passed  out  of  his  state  of  death  into  life  (ver. 
24).  All  judgment  is  given  unto  the  Son  (ver.  22)  :  into  this  judg- 
ment he  that  believeth  does  not  come  (ver.  24).  There  is  special  sig- 
nificance in  the  words  '  believeth  Him  that  sent  me:'  our  Lord  does 
not  say  '  believeth  in  Him,'  for  that  which  He  has  in  view  is  the  ac- 
ceptance of  God's  testimony  concerning  the  Son  (IJohn  5:  10).  Such 
hearing  and  believing  imply  the  full  acceptance  of  Christ,  and  thus 
lead  directly  to  that  '  believing  in  the  Son'  which  (chap.  3  :  36)  gives 
the  present  possession  of  eternal  life.  The  believer  has  passed  into  a 
state  to  which  judgment  does  not  apply;  he  has  received  into  himself 
that  word  which  (chap.  12 :  48)  will  at  the  last  day  judge  all  who  re- 
ject it.  Believing  in  Christ  he  has  life  in  Him,  and  to  all  that  are  in 
Christ  Jesus  there  is  no  condemnation  (Rom.  8  :  1). 

Ver.  25.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  The  third  *  Verily, 
verily,'  introducing  the  third  step  in  the  argument. — An  hour 
cometh,  and  now  is,  w^hen  the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice 
of  the  Son  of  God  :  and  they  that  have  heard  shall  live. 
What  was  said  of  ver.  24  applies  here  also  ;  for  this  verse  has  a  di- 
rect connection  with  that  which  precedes  it  ('  heareth  my  words'  rises 
into  '  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God ' ) ;  and  yet  a  still  more 
important  link  unites  it  with  the  opening  words  of  the  discourse,  es- 


5:  26,27.]  JOHN  V.  123 

26  Son  of  God  :     and  they  that  hear  shall  live.     For  as 
the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  even  so  gave  he  to 

27  the   Son  also  to  have  life  in  himself:  and  he  gave 
him   authority   to   execute  judgement,  because  he  is 

pecially  with  ver.  20.  *  He  will  show  Him  greater  works,'  In  the  21st 
aud  22(1  verses,  these  works  are  looked  at  in  their  own  nature  as  done 
by  the  Son ;  in  the  24th  verse,  they  are  looked  at  in  their  effect  on  the 
believer.  Now  the  '  will  show'  is  brought  into  prominence,  for  it  is  of 
the  historical  fulfillment  of  those  words  that  the  verse  before  us  epeaks. 
*  An  hour  cometh '  when  the  Son's  power  to  give  life  to  the  dead 
(ver.  21)  shall  be  manifested.  Of  the  two  spheres  in  which  this  power 
is  exercised  this  verse  has  in  view  one  only  ;  the  '  dead '  are  those  who 
are  spiritually  dead.  In  regard  to  these  alone  could  it  be  said  that  the 
hour  has  already  begun  ('an  hour  cometh,  and  now  is'),  or  would  the 
limitation  in  the  last  words  be  in  place,  '  they  that  have  heard  shall  live.' 
The  general  meaning  therefore  is  the  same  as  that  of  the  last  verse  ; 
but,  as  it  is  to  '  the  dead  '  that  the  Son  speaks,  we  here  read  of  *  the 
voice,'  and  not  'the  word.'  In  saying  'the  voice  '  of  the  Son  of  God,' 
Jesus  recalls  to  our  thought  all  the  majesty  of  His  first  words  (vers. 
11,  17.  19). 

Ver.  26.  For  even  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself;  so 
gave  he  to  the  Son  also  to  have  life  in  himself.  Ihe  dead 
shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  and  live,  for  the  Son  hath  life  and  can 
impart  life.  This  is  the  connection  between  verses  25  and  26.  The 
Father  who  is  the  primal  fountain  of  life  gave  to  the  Son  to  have  life 
in  Himself.  As  in  verses  19,  20,  21,  that  which  belongs  to  the  Father 
and  that  which  belongs  to  the  Son  are  designated  by  the  same  words, 
while  the  subordination  expressed  in  verses  19,  20,  by  the  figurative 
words  '  showing '  and  'seeing,'  is  here  (as  in  ver.  22)  expressed  by 
the  word  '  gave.'  It  is  therefore  the  essential  nature  of  the  Son  that 
is  spoken  of,  and  not  His  work  in  redemption — '  To  have  life  in  Him- 
self'  is  the  loftiest  expression  that  can  be  used:  the  unchangeable 
possession  of  life  exactly  similar  and  parallel  to  that  of  the  Father, 
such  possession  as  enables  Him  to  be  the  Giver  of  life  to  others,  be- 
longs to  the  Fon. 

Ver.  27.  And  he  gave  him  authority  to  execute  judg- 
ment, because  he  is  A  Son  of  man.  The  Son  '  maketh  to  live,' 
but  He  maketh  to  live  whom  He  will '  (ver.  21 ),  or  (as  we  read  in  ver. 
25),  He  giveth  life  to  those  who  have  heard  His  voice,  and  not  to  all. 
Where,  then,  He  is  not  the  Giver  of  life,  He  is  necessarily  the  judge. 
The  one  though  involves  the  other,  both  in  verses  21,  22  and  here.  The 
Father  who  gave  to  the  Son  the  possession  of  life  gave  Him  judgment 
also.  This  we  read  in  the  22d  verse,  but  the  truth  now  wears  a  new  form ; 
for,  although  the  word  'gave'  is  repeated  in  ver.  27,  it  is  in  relation  to 
a  gift  and  a  sphere  altogether  different  from  those  of  which  the  26th 
verse  speaks.     There  the  essential  attributes  of  the  Son  are  before  us, 


124  JOHN  V.  [5 :  28. 

28  ^  the  Son  of  man.*     Marvel  not  at  this  :  for  the  hour 
cometh,   in  which  all  that   are   in   the   tombs   shall 

^  Or,  a  son  of  man. 
*  Substitute  the  marginal  readeriiig  for  the  text. — Am.  Com. 

including  the  prerogatives  of  the  Word  made  flesh  :  here  we  read  of  a 
gift  which  belongs  to  time  and  not  eternity,  a  gift  which  the  Son  re- 
ceives '  because  He  is  a  son  of  man.'  The  former  verses  that  speak  of 
giving  life  and  of  judging  (2j,  22)  may  have  an  extent  of  application 
of  which  we  know  nothing;  this  verse  relates  to  the  judgment  of  men 
by  One  who  is  very  man.  Such  is  the  force  of  the  words  '  a  son  of 
man.'  In  every  other  passage  of  this  Gospel  it  is  '  the  Son  of  man'  of 
whom  we  read  :  here  only,  and  in  Rev.  1  :  13  ;  14  :  14,  is  the  definite 
article  wanting.  No  expression  brings  out  so  strongly  the  possession 
of  actual  human  nature,  and  for  this  purpose  it  is  employed.  God's 
will  is  to  judge  the  world  by  'a  man  whom  He  ordained'  (Acts  16  : 
31)  ;  and  the  verse  before  us,  though  comprehending  much  more  than 
the  last  judgment,  seems,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  peculiarity  of 
the  expression  '  execute '  or  '  perform  judgment'  (literally  '  do  judg- 
ment' ),  and  from  the  presence  of  this  thought  in  the  immediate  context 
(vers.28,  29),  to  look  especially  towards  the  final  scene.  But  the  judg- 
ment is  one  that  issues  in  condemnation,  and  it  is  the  Father's  will  that 
'  a  son  of  man '  shall  pronounce  the  sentence,  as  one  who  has  taken 
on  Himself  human  nature  in  all  its  reality  and  completeness,  in  all  its 
faculties,  affections,  and  feelings.  Because  He  has  done  so.  He  is  fitted 
to  be  a  Judge  of  men,  and  to  draw  from  the  consciences  of  the  guilty 
an  acknowledgment  of  the  righteousness  of  their  doom.  As  the  Son 
of  God  having  life  in  himself.  He  gives  life,  and  those  who  are  united 
to  Him  by  faith  have  possession  of  a  life  that  is  divine.  But  as  a  son 
of  man  He  judges  ;  as  One  who  has  been  in  the  same  position  with 
those  standing  at  His  bar,  as  One  who  has  fought  the  same  battle  and 
endured  the  same  trials  as  they.  Thus  they  behold  in  their  Judge  One 
who  entirely  knows  them  ;  His  sentence  finds  an  echo  in  their  heart ; 
and  they  are  speechless.  Thus  it  is  that  judgment  becomes  really 
judgment,  and  not  merely  the  infliction  of  punishment  by  resistless 
power. 

Ver.  28.  Marvel  not  at  this.  Jesus  has  been  speaking  of 
works  at  which  they  may  well  marvel  (ver.  20)  ;  but  great  as  these 
may  be,  there  is  yet  a  greater. — Because  an  hour  cometh,  in 
the  -which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  his  voice. 
That  the  future  alone  is  spoken  of  is  clear  from  the  omission  of  the 
words  'and  now  is'  found  in  ver.  25.  The  resurrection  is  not  spirit- 
ual and  figurative,  for  the  words  are  '  all  that  are  in  the  graves,'  not 
'all  that  have  heard,' — *  shall  go  forth,  not  '  shall  live.'  The  consumma- 
tion of  the  work  of  Jesus  is  the  general  resurrection  both  of  the  right- 
eous and  the  wicked.  Now  all  shall  hear  His  voice,  to  which  before 
(ver.  25)  some  only  had  given  heed.  All  shall  go  forth,  but  not  all  to 
a  resurrection  of  life. 


5 :  29,  30.]  JOHN  V.  125 

29  hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth  ;  they  that  have 
done  good,  unto  the  resurrection  of  life ;  and  they 
that  have  ^done  ill,  unto  the  resurrection  of  judge- 
ment. 

30  I  can  of  myself  do  nothing :  as  I  hear,  I  judge : 
and  my  judgement  is  righteous  ;  because   I   seek  not 

^  Or,  practised. 

Ver.  29,  And  they  that  have  done  good  shall  go  forth 
unto  a  resurrection  of  life  ;  but  they  that  have  committed 
evil  unto  a  resurrection  of  judgment.  Those  who  have  com- 
mitted evil,  Avhose  deeds  have  not  been  the  abiding  fruit  and  work  of 
the  truth,  but  merely  the  repeated  manifestation  of  evil  in  its  vanity 
and  worthlessness  (see  3  :  20 j,  shall  go  forth  to  a  resurrection  to  which 
belongs  abiding  judgment.  And  these  alone  come  into  judgment 
(compare  ver.  24).  As  in  3  :  18  it  is  said  that  '  he  that  believeth  in 
Him  is  not  judged,'  so  here,  '  they  that  have  done  good  shall  go  forth 
unto  a  resurrection  of  life.'  The  difference  between  the  two  passages 
is,  that  in  the  one  the  faith  is  named  ;  in  the  other,  the  works  which 
are  the  expression  of  the  life  that  follows  faith,  the  abiding  fruit  of 
faith.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  expressions  'resurrection  of  life' 
and  'resurrection  of  judgment'  denote  states,  not  acts,  of  resurrec- 
tion. No  general  judgment,  therefore,  is  here  mentioned  :  all  that  is 
spoken  of  is  a  general  resurrection,  on  the  part  of  some  to  a  continu- 
ing life,  of  others  to  a  continuing  judgment. 

Ver.  30.  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  nothing :  as  I  hear,  I 
judge :  and  my  judgment  is  just.  This  verse  is  the  dividing 
line  of  the  discourse,  belonging  at  once  to  both  parts,  summing  up  (to 
a  certain  extent)  what  has  gone  before,  leading  on  to  the  new  subject 
which  occupies  the  remainder  of  the  chapter.  The  last  word  spoken 
was  'judgment.'  Jesus  now  returns  to  it,  and  it  is  not  strange  that 
He  should  do  so.  He  is  speaking  in  the  presence  of  the  Jews,  Ilis  de- 
termined foes,  who  refuse  life,  whom  He  judges  and  cannot  but  judge. 
Hence  this  lingering  on  judgment,  and  the  recurrence  to  the  first 
thought  of  the  discourse  (ver.  19),  so  as  to  show  that  this  judgment  is 
not  of  Himself,  but  belongs  both  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son. — The 
figure  of  ver,  19  is  changed.  There  'seeing'  was  the  word  chosen, as 
most  in  harmony  with  the  general  thought  of  works  done  ;  here  it  is 
of  judging  that  Jesus  speaks,  and  hence  the  same  thought  of  commu- 
nion with  the  Father  is  best  expressed  by  'hearing.'  One  characteristic 
of  this  verse  is  so  marked  as  of  itself  to  prove  that  the  verse  is  closely 
related  to  those  which  follow.  From  the  beginning  of  the  discourse 
(ver.  19)  Jesus  has  spoken  of  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Now  He  di- 
rectly fixes  the  eyes  of  His  hearers  upon  Himself  ('  I  can,'  '  I  hear,' 
'I  judge');  and  this  mode  of  speech  is  retained  to  the  very  end  of 
the  chapter. — Because  I  seek  not  mine  own  ■will,  but  the  will 


126  JOHN  V.  [5:  31-33. 

31  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.     If 

32  I  bear  witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  not  true.  It 
is  another  that  beareth  witness  of  me  ;  and  I  know 
that   the  witness  which  he  witnesseth  of  me  is  true. 

33  Ye  have  sent  unto  John,  and  he  hath  borne  witness 

of  him  that  sent  me.  That  His  works  have  not  been  and  cannot 
be  against  the  authority  and  will  of  God,  Jesus  has  shown  by  point- 
ing out  their  essential  unity  with  those  of  the  Father  (ver.  19).  That 
the  judgment  He  must  pass  is  just,  He  has  shown  by  the  same  proof, 
— '  as  I  hear  I  judge.'  But  a  second  proof  is  now  given,  or  rather 
(perhaps)  a  second  aspect  of  the  same  truth  is  brought  into  relief,  that 
thus  His  words  of  rebuke  and  warning  may  be  more  effectually  ad- 
dressed to  the  Jews.  His  action  is  never  separate  from  that  of  the 
Father, — there  can  be  no  variance:  His  will  is  ever  the  will  of  His 
Father, — there  can  be  no  self-seeking.  It  was  because  the  opposite 
spirit  dwelt  and  reigned  in  the  Jews  that  they  were  rejecting  Him,  and 
bringing  judgment  on  themselves. — The  transition  to  the  first  person, 
'  I,'  '  my,'  suggests  an  objection  that  would  arise  in  the  minds  of  the 
Jews.     This  is  met  in  the  verse  that  follows. 

Ver,  31.  If  I  bear  witness  of  myself  concerning  myself, 
my  -witness  is  not  true.  The  word  '  I '  is  emphatic, — '  if  it  is  I 
that  bear  witness.'  The  words  plainly  mean  '  I  and  I  alone,'  for  no 
one  is  discredited  because  he  testifies  to  himself,  although  he  is  not 
credited  if  no  other  witness  appears  on  his  behalf.  The  Jews  may 
have  understood  Jesus  to  mean  :  If  I  have  no  other  witness  to  testify 
concerning  me,  my  testimony  cannot  cLaim  to  be  received.  But  there 
is  more  in  His  words.  In  the  consciousness  of  oneness  with  the 
Father,  He  would  say  that  if  it  were  possible  that  His  own  witness 
should  stand  alone,  unaccompanied  by  that  of  the  Father,  it  would  be 
self-convicted,  would  not  be  true  :  He,  in  making  the  assertion,  would 
be  false,  for  He  is  one  with  the  Father,  and  His  statement,  as  that  of 
one  who  was  false,  would  be  false  also.  He  must  therefore  show  that 
the  witness  He  bore  to  Himself  was  really  borne  to  Him  by  the  Father : 
the  Father's  witness  even  the  Jews  will  acknoAvledge  to  be  true.  To 
this,  therefore.  He  proceeds. 

Ver.  32  It  is  another  that  beareth  witness  concerning 
me.  Not  *  There  is  another,'  as  if  He  would  merely  cite  an  additional 
witness.  He  Avould  lay  the  whole  stress  of  the  witnessing  upon  this 
*  other  witness.'  This  witness  is  the  Father, — not  John  the  Baptist, 
who  is  mentioned  in  the  next  verse  only  that  it  may  be  shown  that 
his  testimony  is  not  that  on  which  Jesus  relies. — And  I  know  that 
the  witness  w^hich  he  w^itnesseth  concerning  me  is  true. 
These  words  are  not  said  in  attestation  of  the  Fatliei-'s  truth,  a  point 
admitted  by  all  :  they  are  the  utterance  of  the  Son'a  profound  con- 
sciousness of  His  own  dignity  and  union  with  the  Father. 

Ver.  33.     Ye  have  sent  unto  John,  and  he  hath  borne  wit- 


6:34,35.]  JOHN  V.  127 

34  unto  the  truth.     But  the  witness  which  I  receive  is 
not  from  man :    howbeit  I  say  these  things,  that  ye 

35  may  be  saved.     He  was  the  lamp  that  burneth  and 
shineth  :  and  ye  were  willing  to  rejoice  for  a  season 

ness  unto  the  truth.  .  As  if  He  said :  Had  I  not  this  all-suflEicient 
witness, — were  it  possible  for  me  to  appeal  to  any  human  witress,  I 
might  rest  on  your  own  act.  Ye  yourselves  have  made  appeal  to  John, 
and  he  hath  borne  witness  to  the  truth  (chap.  1 :  19-27).  Your  mis- 
sion and  his  answer  are  unalterable  and  abiding  facts,  which  press 
upon  you  still  and  cannot  be  set  aside.  What  he  attested  is  the  truth. 
Jesus  does  not  say  '  hath  borne  witness  to  me,'  perhaps  because  that 
to  which  John  bore  witness  was  only  a  revelation  from  God  (compare 
chap.  1:  34),  a  declaration  of  the  truth  which  he  had  received  from 
God  ;  perhaps  because  the  whole  lessen  of  this  passage  is  that  there  is 
only  one  real  witness  to  Jesus,  even  the  Father  speaking  in  the  Son 
and  drawing  out  the  answer  of  the  hrart  to  Him. 

Ver.  34.  But  not  from  a  man  do  I  receive  the  -witness. 
Great  as  was  the  witness  of  this  greatest  of  prophets,  yet  John 
was  only  a  man,  and  his  witness  therefore  is  not  the  real  testimony  to 
Jesus  ;  it  is  a  higher  which  is  given  Him,  and  which  He  receives 
(comp,  ver.  36).  Hence  the  definite  article  before  '  witness.'  How- 
beit these  things  I  say  that  ye  may  be  saved.  Insufficient  as 
was  John's  testimony  for  the  production  of  faith  in  its  deepest  and 
truest  sense,  yet  Jesus  had  referred  to  it,  recognizing  its  value  as  part 
of  the  Divine  arrangements  for  leading  men  to  Himself.  It  ought  to 
have  brought  them  to  Jesus :  and  then,  as  they  listened  to  His  own 
word,  the  true  and  complete  witness  would  have  been  given.  The 
following  words  set  forth  more  fully  the  true  position  of  the  Baptist, 
in  his  value  and  in  his  imperfection.* 

Ver.  35.  He  -was  the  lamp  that  burneth  and  shineth. 
John's  great  work  had  been  to  bear  witness  of  Jesus,  to  point  to  Him. 
By  a  sudden  ti-ansition  this  is  expressed  very  beautifully  in  a  figure. 
As  the  Psalmist  said  of  God's  word  that  it  was  a  lamp  unto  his  feet 
and  a  light  unto  his  path  (Ps.  119  :  105),  shoAving  him  the  right  path, 
preserving  his  feet  from  wandering,  so  does  Jesus  represent  John's 
mission  here.  The  lamp  has  been  supplied  with  oil  and  has  been 
lighted  for  a  special  purpose  ;  it  is  not  self-luminous,  shining  because 
it  is  its  nature  to  give  light.  The  lamp  too  burns  as  it  shines  ;  its 
light  is  transitory,  and  may  well  be  so,  because  in  proportion  as  its 
purpose  is  accomplished  may  the  light  diminish  :  when  its  end  is 
answered,  the  lamp  may  be  extinguished  (comp.  3  :  30).  And  ye 
desired  for  a  season  to  exult  in  his  light.  Alas  !  for  them  the 
lamp  failed  to  fulfil  its  purpose.  Instead  of  learning  the  way  to  Jesus 
by  its  means,  they  thought  only  of  the  light  itself.  No  doubt  this 
light  was  beautiful  and  attractive,  but  it  had  been  designed  only  to 
guide  to  Him  who  would  prove  '  the  true  light '  unto  all  that  followed 


128  JOHN  V.  [5:  36. 

36  in  his  light.  But  the  witness  which  I  have  is  greater 
than  that  of  John :  for  the  works  which  the  Father 
hath  given  me  to  accomplish,  the  very  works  that  I 
do,  bear   witness  of  me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent 

Him  (chap.  1  :  9  ;  8:  12),  The  Jews  are  evidently  censured,  but  not 
(as  some  maintain)  because  they  had  exulted  instead  of  mourning. 
There  had  been  no  call  to  mourning.  The  very  exhortation  to  repen-  , 
tance,  to  prepare  for  the  coming  of  Him  for  whom  Israel  had  long 
waited,  contained  in  it  '  glad  tidings  of  great  joy.'  The  transient  ac- 
ceptance of  .John  himself,  instead  of  the  acceptance  of  his  message  in 
its  true  and  permanent  significance,  is  the  fault  for  which  the  Jews  are 
here  condemned. 

Ver.  36.  But  the  -witness  that  I  have  is  greater  than 
that  of  John.  Our  Lord  does  not  say  '  I  have  greater  witness  than 
that  of  John,  as  if  He  Avas  about  to  specify  additional  testimony  of 
greater  weight  than  the  Baptist's.  No,  that  testimony  to  the  truth 
was  good,  was  useful  (vers.  83,  34),  but  'the  witness  '  which  He  has 
— the  only  witness  to  which  He  appeals — belongs  altogether  to  another 
order,  not  human,  but  Divine.  Other  witness  may  prepare  the  heart, 
external  testimony  may  point  the  way,  but  there  is  only  one  evidence 
offered  by  Jesus  Himself. — For  the  -works  that  the  Father 
hath  given  me  to  accomplish,  the  very  -works  that  I  do, 
bear  -witness  concerning  me,  that  the  Father  hath  sent 
me.  The  evidence  is  works  that  the  Father  liath  given  Him  to  ac- 
complish ;  and  these  works  are  His  evidence,  not  as  external  evidence 
merely,  but  because,  as  expressive  of  the  Father  in  Him,  they  appeal 
to  that  inner  light  in  men  which  ought  to  have  led  men  to  recognise 
the  Father  in  the  Son.  Of  these  '  works  '  miracles  are  one  part,  but 
not  the  whole.  In  two  other  passages  our  Lord  uses  similar  language 
to  this,  speaking  of  the  '  accomplishment '  of  the  work  of  the  Father 
(chap.  4:  34)  or  of  the  work  which  the  Father  hath  given  Him  to  do 
(chap.  17  :  4)  ;  and  in  both  the  work  is  more  than  miracles.  True, 
we  read  in  these  of  '  the  work,'  not  '  the  works,'  but  the  difference  is 
not  essential :  the  many  works  are  the  many  portions  of  the  one  work. 
Nor  need  we  go  beyond  this  discourse  itself  to  see  that  the  very  wid- 
est meaning  must  be  assigned  to  'works.'  The  keynote  is  struck  by 
ver.  17,  which  speaks  of  the  '  working'  of  the  Father  and  the  Son; 
and  in  ver.  20  we  read  of  the  '  greater  works  '  which  the  Father  will 
show  unto  the  Son.  The  '  works  '  then  here  denote  all  that  has  been 
referred  to  in  earlier  verses  (20-30),  whether  present  or  future,  the 
w^orks  of  quickening,  raising,  judging,  all  that  the  Son  does  and  will 
do  until  the  purpose  of  the  Father  is  accomplished  and  the  redemp- 
tive Avork  complete.  These  works,  being  manifestations  of  His  OAvn 
nature,  are  essentially  different  from  all  external  testimony  whatever. 
— Such  as  they  are,  they  have  been  '  given  '  Him  by  the  Father  to  ac- 
complish :  they  are  described  not  as  a  charge  but  as  a  gift  (as  in  ver- 


o :  37, 38]  JOHN  V.  129 

37  me.     And  the  Father  which  sent  me,  he  hath  borne 
witness  of  me.     Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice  at 

38  any  time,  nor  seen  his  form.     And   ye  have  not   his 
word  abiding  in  you :  for  whom  he  sent^  him.  ye  be- 

ses  22,  26,  27)  :  and  they  are  the  very  -works  which  He  is  now  doing 
and  habitually  does.  Special  significance  attaches  to  these  added 
words,  '  the  very  works  that  I  do,'  for  they  show  that  the  witness 
given  by  the  Father  to  the  Son  is  given  in  '  works '  now  presented  to 
their  view.  Every  word  and  every  deed  of  Jesus  is,  as  a  work,  bear- 
ing testimony  to  the  truth  that  the  Father  hath  sent  Him ;  for,  where 
the  heart  of  the  beholder  is  prepared,  every  work  reveals  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Father,  and  is  manifestly  a  work  of  God, 

Ver.  37.  And  the  Father  which  sent  me,  he  hath  borne 
■witness  concerning  me.  As  if  Jesus  said :  And  thus,  in  the 
abiding  gift  of  the  '  works,'  it  is  the  Father  that  sent  me  that  hath 
borne  witness  of  me. — '  Hath  borne  witness  '  corresponds  with  '  hath 
given  ;'  each  points  to  the  continued  possession  of  a  gift  bestowed,  the 
Father's  abiding  presence  with  Him  whom  He  'sent'  and  'sealed' 
(chap.  6  :  27).  Hence  we  must  not  suppose  that  a  neiv  witness  of  the 
Father — 'direct'  (as  some  say),  in  contrast  with  the  'mediate'  testi- 
mony of  the  works — is  here  intended.  If  the  '  works'  include  the 
whole  manifestation  of  the  Son,  the  whole  of  the  tokens  of  the  Father's 
presence  in  Him  and  with  Him,  they  are  no  'mediate'  testimony  ;  no 
testimony  can  be  more  direct. — Never  have  ye  either  heard  a 
voice  of  him  or  seen  a  form  of  him.  The  Father  has  borne 
witness,  but  they  have  not  known  His  presence.  In  the  words  of 
Jesus  He  has  spoken,  and  the  ear  not  closed  through  wilfulness  and 
unbelief  would  have  recognised  the  voice  of  God.  In  the  actions  and 
the  whole  life  of  Jesus  He  has  manifested  Himself,  and  the  spiritual 
eye,  the  man  '  pure  in  heart,'  would  have  '  seen  God.'  It  had  been 
otherwise  with  '  the  Jews.'  Whilst  our  Lord  had  been  working  in 
their  midst  they  had  heard  no  voice  of  the  Father,  they  had  seen  no 
form  of  Him.  This  was  a  proof  that  they  had  never  received  in  their 
hearts  God's  revelation  of  Himself.  Had  they  done  so,  had  they 
(to  use  our  Lord's  figurative  language, — no  doubt  suggested  by  the 
thought  of  the  words  which  He  had  spoken  and  the  miracles  which  He 
had  shown  to  them)  ever  been  acquainted  with  the  Father's  voice,  they 
would  have  recognised  it  when  Jesus  spoke  :  had  the  eyes  of  their  un- 
derstanding ever  been  enlightened  so  as  to  see  God,  they  would  have 
seen  the  Father  manifested  in  their  very  presence  in  His  Son.  What 
is  in  these  two  clauses  couched  in  figurative  terms  the  next  clause 
expresses  cleai-ly. 

Ver.  38.  And  ye  have  not  his  word  abiding  in  you  ;  be- 
cause whom  he  sent,  him  ye  believe  not.  '  Word  '  here  must 
not  be  understood  as  directly  signifying  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament :  it  is  rather  the  substance  of  God's  whole  revelation  of  Him- 
9 


130  JOHN  V.  [5:  39,40. 

39  lieve  not.       ^Ye   search    the    scriptures,    because   ye 
think  that  in  them  ye  have  eternal  life ;    and  these 

40  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  me  :    and  ye  will  not 

1  Or,  Search  the  scriptures. 

self,  however  and  wherever  made.  This  revtlatioi  received  into  a  be- 
lieving heart  becomes  God's  word  in  the  man,  and  to  this  word  an- 
swers the  Word,  in  whom  God  has  perfectly  revealed  Himself  (compare 
Heb,  1:1,2)  By  all  previous  teaching  concerning  Himself  God 
has  prepared  the  way  for  man's  reception  of  His  Son  He  who  did 
not  recognise  the  Son  as  the  Sent  of  God,  showed  by  this  very  sign 
that  the  preparatory  work  had  not  been  effected  in  him, — that  he  had 
not  God's  word  abiding  in  his  heai't.  So  in  the  next  chapter  Jesus 
teaches  that  '  every  one  that  hath  heard  from  the  Father,  and  hath 
learned,  Cometh  unto  Ilim'  fchap.  G;  45).  The  refusal  therefore  of 
the  Jews  to  believe  Him,  that  is,  to  accept  His  claims,  is  of  itself  a 
proof  that  they  have  had  no  spiritual  aptitude  for  discerning  the  pres- 
ence and  the  revelation  of  God.  It  will  be  seen  that,  as  in  the  first 
clause  of  ver.  37  we  cannot  accept  the  view  that  a  new  witness  is  in- 
troduced, different  from  the  works,  so  here  we  cannot  believe  that  the 
'  voice,'  '  form,'  and  '  word  '  are  to  be  limited  to  the  manifestation  of 
God  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  No  doubt  this  is  the  most 
prominent  and  important  part  of  our  Lord's  meaning,  but  we  must 
not  exclude  God's  revelation  of  Himself  in  providence  and  in  the 
heart  of  man,  for  in  all  things  He  had  pointed  to  His  Son.  It  should 
be  mentioned  that  some  have  supposed  the  clause  '  never  have  ye 
heard  a  voice  of  Him'  to  refer  to  the  voice  of  God  at  the  Baptism  of 
our  Lord.  But  such  an  interpretation  is  surely  impossible.  The  tone 
of  the  two  verses  here  is  one  of  reproach  ;  but  that  voice  was  not  in- 
tended for  the  ears  of  the  Jews,  and  their  failure  to  hear  it  was  no 
matter  of  rebuke.  This  explanation,  too,  would  not  diminish  but  in- 
crease the  diflBculty  of  the  words  '  or  seen  a  form  of  Him,'  words 
startling  to  every  Israelite  (compare  Deut.  4 :  12),  and  we  believe, 
only  to  be  accounted  for  when  regarded  as  closely  connected  with  and 
suggested  by  the  words  and  deeds  of  Jesus. 

Ver.  39.  Ye  search  the  Scriptures.  The  link  connecting  this 
verse  with  the  last  is  the  mention  of  God's  '  word.'  We  have  seen  that 
our  Lord  had  referred  in  a  marked  though  not  an  exclusive  manner  to 
the  Scriptures.  To  the  Jews  indeed  it  might  seem  that  He  intended 
to  speak  of  these  alone  ;  and  that  He  should  deny  Jews  the  glory 
which  they  esteemed  most  highly,  by  declaring  that  they  had  not 
God's  '  word'  abiding  in  them,  would  ai'ouse  their  wonder  and  their 
wrath.  Now,  therefore,  Jesus  allows  them  the  praise  that  was  their 
due,  but  shows  also  that  the  very  possession  of  which  they  boasted 
had  been  so  used  by  them  as  to  increase  their  condemnation. — Be- 
cause ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have  eternal  life :  and  it  is 
they  which  bear  -witness  concerning  me. 

Ver.  40.     And   ye   w^ill   not   come   to   me,    that    ye   may 


6:  41.]  JOHN  V.  131 

41  come  to  me,  that  ye   may   have  life.    I  receive   not 

have  life.  The  Jews  did  search  the  sacred  writings, — to  do  so  was 
their  honor  and  their  pride.  Their  own  belief  was  that  in  possessing 
them  they  possessed  eternal  life  ;  as  one  of  their  greatest  teachers 
said,  '  He  who  has  gotten  to  himself  words  of  the  Law  has  gotten  to 
himself  the  life  of  the  world  to  come.'  But  these  very  Scriptures  were 
the  writings  that  bore  witness  concerning  Jesus  (see  the  note  on  ver. 
38).  Had  they  entered  into  their  spirit,  they  would  have  joyfully 
welcomed  Him,  yet  they  refused  to  come  (it  was  not  their  will  to 
come, — see  ver.  6)  to  Him  for  life.  Such  is  the  general  meaning  of 
the  verses  The  Jews  had  used  the  witness  of  the  Scriptures  as  they 
had  dealt  with  that  given  by  the  Baptist  (ver.  35).  What  was  designed 
as  a  means  had  been  made  by  them  an  end ;  what  should  have  led 
them  to  Christ  detained  them  from  Him.  In  a  certain  sense  the 
Scriptures  did  contain  eternal  life,  in  that  they  bore  witness  of  Him 
who  was  the  true  bestower  of  this  gift ;  but  as  long  as  men  busied 
themselves  with  the  words  of  Scripture  to  the  neglect  of  its  purpose, 
believing  that  the  former  would  give  all  they  needed  and  sought,  the 
Scriptures  themselves  kept  them  back  from  life. — It  is  a  little  difficult 
to  decide  what  is  the  reason  for  the  emphasis  which  in  the  original  is 
laid  on  '  ye  '  ('ye  think  that,'  etc.).  The  meaning  may  be  :  ye  your- 
selves set  such  honor  on  the  Scriptures  that  ye  think  eternal  life  is 
found  in  tbem.  In  this  case  an  argument  is  founded  on  their  own  ad- 
missions. Or  our  Lord  may  intend  to  refer  to  this  doctrine  respecting 
the  Scriptures  as  their  belief  only,  not  the  truth,  not  His  teaching;  ye 
think  that  in  the  Scriptures  ye  have  eternal  life,  but  it  is  not  truly  so, 
— eternal  life  is  given  by  me  alone.  The  latter  meaning  seems  most 
in  harmony  with  the  context.  So  understood,  the  words  do  indeed 
rebuke  that  view  of  Scripture  which  rests  everything  on  the  letter,  and 
also  the  inconsistency  between  the  reverence  which  the  Jews  paid  to 
the  sacred  writings  and  their  neglect  of  the  purpose  they  were  de- 
signed to  serve ;  but  to  the  Scriptures  the  highest  honor  is  assigned,  for 
Jesus  says,  '  it  is  they  which  bear  witness  concerning  me.'  When  thus 
interpreted  in  the  sense  in  which  it  appears  necessary  to  understand 
them,  the  words  of  ver.  39  supply  a  lesson  almost  the  opposite  of  that 
usually  drawn  from  them.  While  they  exalt  instead  of  depreciating 
the  Scriptures,  their  main  object  is  to  warn  us  against  putting  them 
into  an  undue  position,  or  supposing  that  they  are  more  than  a  guide 
to  Him  in  whom  alone  life  is  to  be  gained  (comp.  6  :  63).  The  ordi- 
nary rendering  of  the  first  word  ('  Search  '  for  '  Ye  search  ')  seems  al- 
together inconsistent  with  the  course  of  thought  in  these  verses. 

Ver.  41.  Glory  from  men  I  receive  not.  The  last  nine  verses 
have  been  an  expansion  of  ver.  31  ;  this  verse  goes  back  to  the  30th, 
in  which  Jesus  first  contrasts  His  spirit  with  theirs.  His  devotion  to 
the  Father's  will  with  their  self-seeking.  The  rest  of  the  chapter  is  a 
development  of  this  thought.  Yet  there  is  no  abrupt  break  at  ver.  40. 
Jesus  has  been  speaking  of  the  refusal  of  the   Jews  to    'believe'  Him 


132  JOHN  V.  [5:  42,43. 

42  glory  from  men.     But  I  know  you,  that  ye  have  not 

43  the  love  of  God  in  yourselves.  I  am  come  in*  my 
Father's  name,  and  ye  receive  me  not :  if  another 
shall   come   in  his   own   name,  him  ye  will  receive. 

and  '  come  to '  Him  as  the  suflScient  and  certain  evidence  of  the  evil 
of  their  hearts.  But  in  so  speaking  He  is  not  Himing  at  His  own 
honor,  or  seeking  fame  from  men.  In  every  claim  for  Himself  He 
seeks  His  Father's  glory ;  and  the  possession  of  that  spirit  is  the  test 
of  the  truth  and  righteousness  which  are  well-pleasing  to  the  Father : 
see  chap.  7  :   18  ;  12  :  43. 

Ver.  42.  But  I  know  you,  that  ye  have  not  the  love  of 
God  in  you.  I  know, — that  is,  I  have  discerned  you,  I  have  read 
your  hearts.  Love  to  God  is  the  foundation  of  the  spirit  of  self-sacri- 
fice, through  which  a  man  seeks  not  his  own,  but  the  Father's  will. 
When  love  to  God  rules,  therefore,  the  guiding  principle  is  not  the 
desire  after  glory  from  men.  The  Jews  whom  our  Lord  was  address- 
ing believed  themselves  zealous  for  God  ;  but  in  the  very  service  which 
they  offered  Him  they  were  guilty  of  self-seeking.  They  valued  them- 
selves on  what  they  presented  to  Him,  and  yet  they  presented  not  that 
which  most  of  all  He  sought, — the  love  in  which  self  is  lost.  What 
striking  words  are  those  of  this  verse  to  address  to  men  who  spent 
their  days  in  searching  the  Scriptures  and  in  honoring  the  divinely- 
appointed  institutions  of  the  Law  !  Their  error  was  that  they  had  not 
entered  into  the  spirit  of  these  things,  had  not  seen  why  God  had 
given  them,  had  not  therefore  understood  that  glorious  righteousness 
of  God  in  the  presence  of  which  man  feels  himself  to  be  nothing.  They 
had  thought  that  to  God  these  things  were  an  object  in  themselves. 
They  had  brought  God  down  to  the  level  of  caring  for  that  in  caring 
for  which  as  his  highest  good  a  man  feels  himself  exalted  and  glorified. 

Ver.  43.  I  am  come  in  my  Father's  name,  and  ye  receive 
me  not.  Referring  everything  to  His  Father's  power  and  presence, 
in  everything  doing  His  Father's  will  and  not  His  own,  at  all  times 
seeking  His  Fathei-'s  glory,  Jesus  came  *  in  His  Father's  name.'  Be- 
cause that  was  His  spirit,  they  did  not  receive  Him. — If  another 
shall  come  in  his  ovrn  name,  him  ye  will  receive.  So  far  has 
self-seeking  gone  with  them,  that  they  can  understand  no  other  course 
of  action  than  that  which  is  animated  by  this  principle.  If  a  man 
come  in  the  opposite  spirit  to  that  displayed  by  Jesus, — setting  forth 
himself  alone,  seeking  his  own  ends,  and  guided  by  no  will  but  his 
own,  though  all  under  the  guise  of  promoting  the  glory  of  God, — such 
a  man  they  will  be  able  to  understand  They  will  sympathize  with 
his  motives,  will  even  enthusiastically  embrace  his  cause.  The  other 
course  they  cannot  comprehend  ;  so  far  as  they  do  understand  it,  it  is 
a  constant  reproach  to  them.  This  is  a  terrible  description  of  those 
who  were  then  the  rulers  of  'God's  people  Israel:'  but,  alas!  the 
•words  apply  with  perfect  fitness  to  the  spirit  which  in  every  age  of  the 


o :  44, 45.]  JOHN  V.  133 

44  How  can   ye  believe,  which  receiv^e  glory  one  of  an- 
other, and  the  glory  that  cometh  from  ^  the  only  God 

45  ye  seek  not  ?     Think   not  that  I  will  accuse  you  to 
the    Father :    there   is   one   that  accuseth  you,   even 

iS.me  ancient  authorities  read  the  only  one. 

history  of  Christ's  Church  has  contended  against  God  whilst  profess- 
ing to  do  Him  service  ;  which  in  every  age  has  tried  to  stop  the  pro- 
gress of  truth, — sometimes  without,  at  other  times  within,  the  Church, 
— as  truth  has  striven  to  pierce  through  forms  that,  once  good,  have 
with  the  course  of  time  stiffened  iutu  the  rigidity  of  death.  Nothing 
can  save  from  that  spirit  but  the  higher  and  nobler  spirit  breathing  in 
the  words,  '  glory  from  man  I  receive  not.' 

Ver.  44.  How  can  ye  believe,  receiving  glory  one  of 
another  ?  As  in  the  preceding  verses,  the  word  receive  is  to  be  un- 
derstood as  implying  a  desire  and  a  '  seeking  '  on  their  part.  Such 
love  of  honor  from  men  is  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  '  believing' 
of  which  our  Lord  speaks.  He  is  not  referring  to  a  merely  intellect- 
ual act.  but  to  an  act  which  is  also  moral, — not  to  believing  an  asser- 
tion, but  to  believing  in  Him.  Where  there  is  self-seeking  there  can 
be  no  true  faith. — And  the  glory  that  is  from  the  only  God  ye 
seek  not.  They  who  thus  sought  glory  from  men  sought  not  glory 
from  '  the  only  God.'  The  Jews  were  the  champions  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  unity  of  God,  and,  in  the  very  pursuits  and  aims  which  our 
Lord  condemns,  persuaded  themselves  that  they  sought  the  glory  of 
God  and  merited  reward.  But  with  such  aims  it  was  impossible  to 
please  Him,  and  thus  they  missed  the  recompense  which  comes  from 
'  the  only  God,'  who  is  the  '  only  "  dispenser  of  true  glory. 

Ver.  45.  Do  not  think  that  I  -will  accuse  you  to  the 
Father :  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  in 
■whom  ye  have  placed  your  hope.  These  words  do  not  dimin- 
ish, but  increase  the  severity  of  our  Lord's  condemning  words. 
Their  objects  of  trust  have  been  successively  taken  away.  They  have 
the  Scriptures ;  but  they  have  so  used  them  as  to  miss  their  whole 
design  ;  they  are  rejecting  Him  of  whom  they  witness,  and  are  offer- 
ing to  God  a  labor  and  a  zeal  which  have  no  value  in  His  sight.  The 
chief  tenet  in  their  faith  is  that  'God  is  one'  (Deut.  6:4;  Jas.  2:  19); 
but,  in  the  absence  of  the  'love  of  God'  from  their  hearts,  their  zeal 
for  orthodox  faith  has  not  gained  for  them  the  '  glory  that  is  from  the 
only  God.'  There  has  been  more,  however;  than  misuse  and  loss. 
Their  very  lawgiver,  Moses,  in  whom  they  had  set  their  hope,  is  al- 
ready their  accuser  before  God.  No  further  accusation  is  needed. 
No  more  crushing  blow  could  be  given  to  their  pride.  Moses  their 
accuser  before  God  !  Yet  it  was  so.  When  we  refuse  to  enter  into 
all  the  parts  of  God's  plan,  the  very  parts  of  it  for  whose  sake  our 
refusal  is  given,  and  whose  honor  we  imagine  we  are  maintaining, 
turn  round  upon  us  and  disown  our  aid. 


134  JOHN  VI.  [5 :  46, 47-G :  1. 

46  Moses,  on  whom  ye  have  set  your  hope.     For  if  ye 
believed  Moses,  ye  would  believe  me  ;  for  he  wrote 

47  of  me.     But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings,  how  shall 
ye  believe  my  words  ? 

Chapter  6:  1-21. 

The  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand. 

1     After  these  things  Jesus  went  away  to  the  other 
side  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  which  is  the  sea  of  Tiberias. 

Ver.  46.  For  if  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  -would  believe  me : 
for  he  -wrote  concerning  me.  Our  Lord,  no  doubt,  refers  in  part 
to  special  predictions  (such  as  that  of  Deut.  18:  15,  18);  but  more 
especially  He  refers  to  the  whole  revelation  of  divine  truth  contained 
in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  by  parity  of  reasoning  to  the  whole  Old 
Testament — the  Scriptures  of  ver.  39.  In  all  the  revelation  given 
through  him,  Moses  wrote  concerning  Jesus,  His  great  purpose  was 
to  prepare  the  way  for  the  true  Prophet  and  Priest  and  King  of  Israel. 
Christ  was  '  the  end  of  the  law.'  Had,  therefore,  the  Jews  'believed 
Moses' — that  is,  accepted  his  witness  in  its  true  character,  and  en- 
tered into  its  spirit — they  would  have  been  led  by  that  preparatory 
prophetic  teaching  to  believe  the  Christ  of  whom  Moses  wrote. 

Ver.  47.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  -writings,  ho-w  -will  ye 
believe  my  -words?  If,  however,  they  did  not  truly  believe  the 
wi'itten  word,  which  was  constantly  in  their  hands,  which  was  the 
object  of  so  much  reverence,  which,  as  written,  could  be  studied  again 
and  again  for  the  removal  of  every  difficulty  and  the  investigation  of 
every  claim,  then  might  it  well  be  expected  that  they  would  refuse  to 
receive  the  words  which  Jesus  spoke. 

The  Feeding  of  the  Five  Thousand,  6  :   1-21. 

Contents. — The  sixth  chapter  continues  the  conflict  of  Jesus  with  the  Jews,  under 
the  same  point  of  view  as  that  which  we  found  to  be  prominent  in  chap.  v.  As  in 
that  chapter  Jesus  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  Sabbath,  so  in  this  He  is  the  fulfilment 
of  the  Passover ;  He  is  the  true  bread,  the  true  substance  of  our  Paschal  feast.  The 
section  now  before  us,  contained  in  the  first  part  of  the  chapter,  may  be  divided  into 
three  subordinate  parts:  (1)  vers.  1-13  the  miracle  of  the  multiplying  of  the  bread; 
(2)  vers.  14,  15,  the  efifect  produced  by  the  miracle  upon  the  Galilsean  multitude, 
leading  Jesus  to  withdraw  to  the  other  side  of  the  sea;  (3)  vers.  16-21,  the  storiu  and 
the  reassuring  of  the  disciples. 

Ver.  1.  After  these  things.  Like  chap,  v.,  this  chapter  opens 
with  an  indefinite  note  of  time,  '  after  these  things.'  In  the  former 
instance  we  saw  that  the  interval  covered  by  the  expression  may  have 
been  two  or  three  months ;  here,  if  we  take  the  feast  spoken  of  in 


6:  1.]  JOHN  VI.  135 


chap.  5 :  1  to  have  been  the  feast  of  Purim,  the  events  of  the  two 
chapters  5  and  6  were  not  separated  by  more  than  about  two  or  three 
weeks,  for  Purim  was  past  and  the  Passover  was  drawing  near  (ver. 
4).  From  the  other  Evangelists  we  know  that  Jesus  went  into  Gali- 
lee after  the  imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist  (Matt.  4:  12;  Mark 
1:  ]4);  and  also  that  after  the  death  of  the  Baptist  He  withdrew 
from  Galilee  (Matt.  14:  13;  Mark  6:  31).  In  this  Gospel  we  have 
already  met  with  two  visits  to  Galilee  (chap.  2 :  1  ;  4:3  and  43),  and 
another  is  implied  in  the  verse  before  us.  Which  of  these  three  is 
the  journey  spoken  of  in  Matt.  4:  12?  Certainly  not  the  first  (John 
2:  1,  11),  for  John  was  not  then  cast  into  prison  (chap.  3:  24).  Pro- 
bably not  the  second,  for  chap.  4  :  1  implies  that  the  Baptist  was  still 
at  that  time  engaged  in  active  work  (see  note  on  4:  1).  It  would 
seem  therefore  that  the  visit  to  which  the  earlier  Evangelists  give  so 
much  prominence,  which  indeed  is  the  commencement  of  their  de- 
tailed history  of  the  Saviour's  public  ministry,  took  place  after  the 
feast  to  which  reference  is  made  in  chap.  6:1.  It  is  in  complete 
accordance  with  this  that  Jesus  in  chap.  5 :  35  uses  words  which  ap- 
pear to  indicate  that  the  Baptist's  public  work  was  at  an  end.  If  this 
view  be  correct,  the  earlier  Evangelists  enable  us  completely  to  fill 
up  the  interval  between  chaps.  5  and  6.  Indeed,  assuming  the  feast 
of  chap.  5  to  be  Purim,  the  chief  objection  raised  against  the  view 
we  advocate  is  that  the  period  of  three  weeks  is  too  short  for  the 
events  which  come  in  between  our  Lord's  journey  to  Galilee  and  the 
Feeding  of  the  Multitude.  Mark,  for  instance,  relates  the  one  in  1 : 
14  and  the  other  in  6:  30-44.  No  doubt  the  first  impression  made 
on  any  reader  is  that  such  a  series  of  events  must  have  occupied 
months  rather  than  weeks  ;  but  if  the  narrative  be  attentively  exam- 
ined, it  will  be  found  that  there  is  no  real  ground  for  such  an  impres- 
sion. The  three  Evangelists  seem  to  have  been  led  rather  to  give  a 
full  description  of  certain  parts  than  an  outline  of  the  whole  of  our 
Lord's  ministry  in  Galilee.  If  the  days  seem  crowded  with  events, 
the  intensity  of  the  living  ministry  of  Jesus  does  but  receive  the  fuller 
illustration,  and  we  have  the  most  impressive  comment  on  His  own 
words  in  this  Gospel  (4 :  34 ;  9 :  4)  and  on  the  closing  testimony  of 
the  apostle  (21 :  "2,5).  Between  these  chapters,  then,  must  be  placed 
many  of  the  most  familiar  chapters  of  the  earlier  Gospels.  To  say 
nothing  of  the  wonderful  miracles  wrought  in  Capernaum  and  in 
other  places  on  the  coast  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  to  this  interval  belong 
the  appointment  of  the  twelve  apostles,  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  the 
Parables  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Matt.  13),  the  death  of  John  the 
Baptist  in  the  castle  of  Machaerus.  But  John's  omission  of  all  that 
happened  during  our  Lord's  sojourn  in  Galilee  until  the  point  to 
which  this  verse  relates  is  in  accord  with  the  general  structure  of  his 
Gospel ;  and  the  special  reason  which  led  him  to  relate  the  particular 
events  of  this  chapter,  and  these  only,  will  be  noticed  as  we  proceed. 
Nothing,  we  may  add,   can  more  strikingly  illustrate  the  two-fold 


136  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  2-4. 

2  And  a  great  multitude  followed  him,  because  thoy 
beheld  the  signs  which  he  did  on  them  that  were  siclv. 

3  And  Jesus  went  up  into  the  mountain,  and  there  he 

4  sat  with  his  disciples.     IS^ow  the  passover,  the  feast  of 

doctors  of  the  law,  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  multitudes  of  Galilee, 
on  the  other,  tlian  a  comparison  of  the  discourse  in  Jerusalem,  which 
we  have  just  considered  (chap.  5),  with  the  Sermon  and  the  Parables 
spoken  but  a  few  days  later. — Jesus  •went  a"way  to  the  other 
side  of  the  sea  of  Galilee,  -which  is  the  sea  of  Tiberias. 
From  Luke  9 :  10  we  learn  that  the  place  to  which  Jesus  crossed  over 
was  Bethsaida,  that  is,  Betbsaida  Julias  in  Gaulonitis,  a  place  near 
the  north-eastern  corner  of  the  lake,  to  be  carefully  distinguished 
from  Betbsaida  of  Galilee,  which  was  on  the  western  shore.  It  is  re- 
markable that  John  should  give  a  two-fold  designation  of  the  sea — sea 
of  Galilee  and  (sea)  of  Tiberias.  The  latter  name,  which  perhaps  was 
best  known  by  those  amongst  whom  he  wrote,  is  used  by  him  alone, 
here  and  in  chap.  21 :  1 ;  the  former,  'sea  of  Galilee,'  is  the  name 
regularly  used  by  Matthew  and  Mark.  In  Luke's  Gospel  the  only 
name  is  lake  of  Gennesaret  (chap.  5:1). 

Ver.  2.  And  a  great  multitude  foUo-wed  him,  because 
they  beheld  the  signs  which  he  did  on  them  that  were 
sick.  The  Greek  words  are  very  expressive,  pointing  cleai-ly  to 
repeated  miracles  of  healing,  on  account  of  which  crowds  followed 
him  continually  from  place  to  place.  This  is  the  only  verse  in  John's 
Gospel  coi'responding  with  the  many  passages  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels 
that  briefly  record  a  multitude  of  such  works  (Matt.  4:  24;  8:  16; 
9:  35;  15:  30;  Mai-k  6:  5G;  Luke  9:  11,  etc.) ;  and  it  refers  to  that 
very  Galiloean  ministry  to  which  those  records  belong.  In  Judasa,  as 
in  unbelieving  Nazareth  (Mark  6  :  5),  *  He  could  not  do  many  mighty 
works.' 

Ver.  3.  And  Jesus  went  up  into  the  mountain,  and  there 
he  sat  with  his  disciples.  He  retired  for  the  purpose  of  rest  and 
prayer,  and  that  he  might  instruct  his  disciples — the  twelve  who  had 
just  returned  from  their  mission  (Mark  6:  30).  'The  mountain'  we 
must  probably  understand  in  a  general  sense  as  meaning  the  high 
ground  near  Bethsaida.  In  this  part  the  eastern  hills  closely  approach 
the  lake. 

Ver.  4.  Now  the  passover,  the  feast  of  the  Jew^s,  was 
nigh.  On  the  words  'of  the  Jews'  see  the  notes  on  1:  19;  2:  13. 
The  addition  here  serves  to  explain  why  Jesus  did  not  go  up  to  the 
Passover.  He  had  been  rejected  by  the  Tews  at  the  former  Passover 
(2:  18) :  the  feast,  which  had  before  that  time  been  robbed  by  them 
of  its  sanctity,  belonged  after  their  rejection  of  Him  no  longer  to  His 
Father,  but  'to  the  Jews.'  But  if  Jesus  did  not  visit  Jerusalem  for 
this  festival,  why  is  it  mentioned  here  ?  It  certaiidy  serves  a  chrono- 
logical purpose  (though  it  must  be  remembered  that  we  cannot  say 


6:  5,6.]  JOHN  VI.  137 

5  tlie  Jews,  was  at  liaiid.  Jesus  therefore  lifting  up  his 
eyes,  and  seeing  that  a  great  multitude  cometh  unto 
him,  saith  inito  Philip,  AVheuce  are  we  to  buy  ^  bread, 

6  that  these  may  eat  ?     And  this  he  said  to  prove  him : 

1  Gr.  loaves, 

with  absolute  certainty  that  tliis  was  the  Passover  immediately  follow- 
ing that  of  2:  11) ;  but  even  in  such  incidental  notices  as  these,  John 
has  not  his  eye  only  or  chiefly  on  chronology.  Some  have  supposed 
that  it  is  to  account  for  the  crowds  which  followed  Him,  and  which 
may  have  consisted  mainly  or  partly  of  the  Galilean  caravan  on  its 
way  to  the  holy  city  to  attend  the  feast.  But  ver.  2  makes  this  un- 
likely, for  it  gives  an  entirely  different  explanation  of  the  concourse. 
Besides  which,  ver.  5  seems  to  connect  the  notice  of  the  season  and 
the  miracle  to  follow  in  such  a  way  as  to  suggest  rather  an  internal 
than  an  external  relation  between  them.  It  is  probable,  therefore, 
that  the  Evangelist,  by  this  mention  of  the  Passover,  intends  to  show 
us  the  light  in  Avhich  the  whole  narrative  should  be  viewed.  The 
miracle  and  the  discourses  alike  relate  to  the  true  Passover,  the  reality 
and  substance  of  that  feast  which  has  now,  alas  !  become  '  the  feast  of 
the  Jews.' 

Ver,  5.  Jesus  therefore  having  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and 
having  seen  that  a  great  multitude  cometh  unto  him.  The 
place  in  which  the  multitudes  were  gathering  was  a  desert  plain  at 
the  foot  of  the  hills, — Saith  unto  Philip,  Whence  are  "we  to 
buy  bread,  that  these  may  eat?  It  was  as  they  drew  near  that 
Jesus  addressed  the  question  to  Philip  The  other  narratives  say 
nothing  of  it ;  but  all  represent  the  disciples  as  coming  to  their  Lord 
when  the  day  began  to  wane  to  beg  Him  to  send  away  the  multitudes. 
Our  Lord's  question  to  Philip,  then,  is  entirely  independent  of  the 
later  petition  of  the  Twelve.  Even  were  it  otherwise,  however,  and 
were  John  referring  to  the  same  point  of  time  as  the  other  Evangel- 
ists, there  would  be  no  ground  whatever  for  asserting  that  there  is 
any  discrepancy  between  the  narratives,  for  none  of  them  can  contain 
all  that  passed  between  the  disciples  and  their  Master.  Besides  this, 
the  eleven  may  not  have  heard  the  words,  or  may  not  have  seen  their 
significance  if  they  did  hear  them. 

Ver.  6.  No-w  this  he  said  proving  him :  for  he  himself 
knew  -what  he  was  about  to  do.  Why  Philip  was  addressed,  is 
a  question  often  raised.  The  mention  of  the  circumstance  may  be 
only  the  graphic  touch  of  an  eye-witness,  and  there  may  be  nothing 
important  in  the  Master's  choice  of  the  disciple  whose  faith  He  is  to 
try.  Yet  it  is  more  likely  that  some  special  reason  did  exist.  Philip 
may  have  had  something  to  do  with  making  provision  for  the  wants 
of  the  company  of  disciples  :  this  is  not  inconsistent  with  chap.  12  :  6. 
Or  there  may  have  been  something  in  the  character  of  Philip's  mind 
that  led  to  the  special  selection  of  him  for  trial ;  and  the  incident  re- 


138  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  7-10. 

7  for  he  himself  knew  what  he  would  do.  Philip  an- 
swered him,  Two  hundred  ^pennyworth  of  ^ bread  is 
not  sufficient  for  them,  that  every  one  may  take  a  lit- 

8  tie.      One  of  his  disciples,  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's 

9  brother,  saith  unto  him,  There  is  a  lad  here,  which 
hath  five  barley  loaves,  and  two  fishes  :  but  what  are 

10  these  among  so  many?  Jesus  said,  Make  the  people 
sit  down.  Now  there  was  much  grass  in  the  place. 
So  the  men  sat  down,  in  number  about  five  thousand. 

1  See  marginal  note  on  Matt.  18 :  28.  2  Gr.  loaves. 

lated  in  12:  22  has  been  appealed  to  as  showing  a  tendency  on  his 
part  to  a  caution  that  might  become  excessive  and  obstructive  to  the 
development  of  faith.  A  more  correct  explanation  may  be  that,  in- 
tending to  manifest  Himself  as  the  fulfilment  of  what  is  written  in  the 
law,  Jesus  turns  first  to  one  who  had  confessed  Him  as  the  subject  of 
♦the  law  and  the  prophets'  (1:  4i).  He  would  test  him,  and  try 
whether  he  had  entered  into  the  full  meaning  of  his  own  confession. 

Ver.  7.  Philip  ans-wered  him,  Two  hundred  pennyworth 
of  bread  is  not  sufficient  for  them,  that  every  one  may  take 
a  little.  As  the  number  of  the  men  alone  proved  to  be  five  thousand, 
an  expenditure  of  200  '  pence '  {i.  e.  200  denarii)  would  allow  less 
than  a  denarius,  or  about  eight  pence  of  our  money,  to  twenty-five 
persons,  and  that  sum  would  not  purchase  in  ordinary  times  more 
than  five  or  six  ounces  of  bread  for  each.  Philip  might  well  say, 
that  it  was  'not  sufficient  for  them.' 

Ver.  8.  One  of  his  disciples,  Andrew,  Simon  Peter's 
brother,  saith  unto  him.  On  the  appellation  here  given  to  An- 
drew see  on  chap.  1 :  40.  Andrew  is  again  associated  with  Philip  in 
chap.  12:  22. 

Ver.  9.  There  is  a  little  lad  here  which  hath  five  barley 
loaves  and  two  fishes:  but  what  are  they  among  so  many? 
John  shows  Andrew  as  standing  somewhat  in  advance  of  Philip,  in 
that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  think  that  their  little  store  may  be  set 
before  the  multitude,  though  he  is  perplexed  at  his  own  suggestion. 
This  is  in  accordance  with  the  fact  that  in  the  lists  of  the  apostles 
Andrew  takes  precedence  of  Philip. 

Ver.  10.  Jesus  said,  Make  the  people  sit  down.  '  The 
people,'  a  general  word,  including  both  men  and  women,  is  used 
here.  They  are  directed  to  sit  down,  partly  for  the  sake  of  order  and 
ease  in  the  distribution  of  the  food,  but  also  because  the  Lord  is  pre- 
paring to  set  a  feast  before  them,  and  they  sit  down  with  Him  as  His 
guests. — Now  there  w^as  much  grass  in  the  place.  So  Mark 
speaks  of  the  'green  grass' — a  minute,  but  interesting  coincidence. 
■The  circumstance  is  one  that  an  eye-witness  would  naturally  note, 
especially  after  relating  the  direction  given,  that  the  multitude  should 


6:  11,12.]  JOHN  VI.  139 

11  Jesus  therefore  took  the  loaves ;  and  having  given 
thanks,  he  distributed  to  them  that  were  set  down ; 
likewise  also  of  the  fishes  as  much  as  they  would. 

12  And  when  thev  were  filled,  he  saith  unto  his  disciples, 
Gather  up  the  broken  pieces  which  remain  over,  that 

sit  down.  John  alone  has  given  the  season  of  the  year  (ver.  4) ;  on 
this  day  of  early  spring  the  grass  would  be  flourishing  and  abundant. 
— So  the  men  sat  down,  in  number  about  five  thousand. 
The  'men'  are  now  singled  out  for  a  special  reason,  probably  because 
they,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  East,  sat  down  first.  We  may 
also  suppose  that  the  number  of  women  and  children  would  not  be 
very  large. 

Ver.  11.  Jesus  therefore  took  the  loaves:  and  -when  he 
had  given  thanks,  he  distributed  to  them  that  had  sat 
down  ;  likew^ise  also  of  the  fishes  as  much  as  they  would. 
Jesus  alone  is  mentioned;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  He  employed 
the  agency  of  His  disciples.  In  Mark  6 :  41  we  read  that  .Jesus 
gave  the  loaves  to  His  disciples  to  set  before  the  multitude ;  but,  in  the 
very  same  verse,  that  the  'two  fishes  divided  He  amongst  them  all;' 
yet  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  mode  of  distribution  would  be  the  same 
in  both  cases.  However  done,  the  work  of  distribution  was  really 
His,  and  the  Evangelist  would  fix  our  thoughts  on  Him  alone.  This 
miracle,  as  has  often  been  remarked,  is  (with  the  exception  of  our 
Lord's  resurrection)  the  only  one  related  by  all  four  Evangelists. 
The  differences  in  the  accounts  are  very  slight.  It  is  curious  to  note 
that  in  all  the  other  narratives  of  it  our  Lord  is  said  to  have  'blessed' 
before  He  brake  the  loaves,  whereas  in  the  two  accounts  of  the  feed- 
ing of  the  four  thousand  He  'gave  thanks'  before  breaking  the  bread: 
here,  however,  giving  thanks  takes  the  place  of  blessing.  When  the 
miracle  is  referred  to  below  (ver.  23\  the  Lord's  '  giving  thanks'  is 
brought  into  prominence.  This  would  seem  to  show  that  the  word  is 
here  used  with  intentional  significance,  probably  with  marked  refer- 
ence to  the  Paschal  meal,  at  which  thanksgiving  played  so  important 
a  part.  There  is  a  striking  resemblance  indeed  between  the  descrip- 
tion before  us  and  the  accounts  of  the  last  supper,  especially  that 
given  in  1  Cor.  11. 

Ver.  12.  And  when  they  were  filled,  he  saith  unto  his 
disciples,  Gather  together  the  pieces  that  remain,  that  no- 
thing be  lost.  The  earlier  Gospels  relate  the  act  of  the  disciples, 
but  not  the  command  of  .Jesus.  .John,  everywhere  intent  on  what  his 
Master  did  and  said,  preserves  for  us  this  word.  The  design  of  the 
command  is  to  bring  out  the  preciousness  of  the  food  which  Jesus  had 
given — not  to  teach  a  lesson  of  economy,  or  to  reprove  the  over-scru- 
pulous calculations  of  Andrew  and  Philip.  It  is  usual  to  understand 
by  'pieces'  the  fragments  broken  by  the  multitude  during  their  meal; 
but  it  is  more  probable  that  they  were  pieces  broken  by  our  Lord — 


140  JOHN  VI.  [G:  13,  14. 

13  nothing  be  lost.  So  tliey  gathered  them  up,  and  filled 
twelve  baskets  with  broken  pieces  from  the  five  bar- 
ley loaves,  which  remained  over  unto  them  that  liad 

14  eaten.  A\^hen  therefore  the  people  saw  the  ^sigii 
which  he  did,  they  said,  This  is  of  a  truth  the  j)ropliet 
that  Cometh  into  the  world. 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  signs. 

pieces  that  remained  undistributed  or  unconsumed  because  of  the 
abundance  of  the  supply. 

Ver.  13.  Therefore  they  gathered  them  together,  and  filled 
t-welve  baskets  -with  pieces  from  the  five  barley  loaves, 
■which  remained  over  and  above  unto  them  that  had  eaten. 
The  repetition  of  the  words:  '  tlie  five  barley  loaves,'  is  remarkable; 
the  writer  wishes  to  lay  emphasis  on  the  identity  of  the  fragments 
with  the  loaves  of  the  original  supply.  Mark  speaks  of  the  collection 
of  the  fragments  of  the  fishes  (6:  43);  John,  intent  on  the  idea  to  be 
unfolded,  alike  in  the  scene  and  in  the  discoui-se  that  followed  it, 
passes  by  this  circumstance.  The  number  of  baskets  was  twelve. 
We  can  hardly  doubt  tliat  each  apostle  had  his  own  '  basket,'  and 
that  each  of  these  was  filled.  Nor  is  it  fanciful  to  see  in  this  a  token 
that  what  was  symbolized  by  the  precious  bread  was  destined  for  each 
tribe  of  Israel.  In  every  narrative  of  this  miracle,  the  same  word 
(cophmus)  is  used  for  basket ;  in  the  accounts  of  the  feeding  of  the 
four  thousand  (Matt.  15:  37 ;  Mark  8:  8),  the  word  is  entirely  differ- 
ent; and  where  the  two  miracles  are  referi'ed  to  together,  each  retains 
the  word  that  belongs  to  it ;  so  that  in  Matt.  16  :  9,  10,  and  Mark  8 : 
19,  20,  the  word  '  baskets,'  repeated  in  our  translation,  answers  to 
different  words.  John's  agreement  with  the  other  Evangelists  in  so 
minute  a  point  as  the  use  of  cophinus  in  connection  with  this  miracle 
is  interesting  and  important. 

Ver.  14.  When  therefore  the  people  saw  the  sign  that 
he  did,  they  said.  '  The  people,'— e.  e.,  the  people  of  ver.  10,  those 
who  had  been  fed  and  satisfied.  Are  we,  however,  to  understand  that 
they  saw  the  '  wonder,'  but  saw  in  it  no  '  sign,'  as  it  is  said  by  our 
Lord  below,  '  Ye  follow  me  not  because  ye  saw  signs  ;'  or  may  we  sup- 
pose that  even  to  this  multitude  the  miracle  was  a  sign,  like  the  mir- 
acles of  healing  which  they  had  witnessed  before  ?  (ver.  2).  The  lat- 
ter interpretation  is  nearer  to  the  words  of  John,  and  is  more  proba- 
ble. If  in  any  sense  the  cures  were  *  signs '  to  the  beholders,  the  mul- 
tiplying of  the  loaves  must  have  been  a  greater  '  sign.'  Their  own 
words  confirm  this,  for  they  receive  the  miracle  as  the  heaven-ap- 
pointed token  of  the  mission  of  Jesus.  Still  they  did  not  really  look 
beneath  the  surface ;  in  the  depth  of  meaning  which  the  word  has  to 
John,  the  wonderful  work  was  not  apprehended  as  a  *  sign.'  Our 
Lord's  design  in  this  chapter  is,  as  we  shall  see,  to  remove  their  igno- 


G:  1-3.]  JOHN  VI.  HI 

15  Jesus  tliercfore  perceiving  that  they  were  about 
to  come  and  take  him  by  force,  to  make  him  king, 
Avitlidrew  again  into  the  mountain  himself  alone. 

ranee  on  this  very  point.— This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet  that 
Cometh  into  the  world.  To  an  Israelite  a  miracle  at  once  sug- 
gested the  thought  of  a  prophet  (Deut.  13  :  1),  as  the  general  name 
for  one  who  had  received  a  Divine  mission.  But  here  it  is  of  the 
Trophet  that  they  speak,  no  doubt  referring  to  the  promise  of  Deut. 
18  :  15  (see  note  on  chap.  1 :  21).  The  general  expectation  which  lay 
in  the  hearts  of  men  at  this  time  clothed  itself  in  diiierent  forms  of  ex- 
pression, according  to  the  events  which  drew  it  forth.  Perhaps  the 
miracle  of  Elisha  (2  Kings  4 :  43)  rose  to  their  thought,  or  that  of 
Elijah  (1  Kings  17:  14)  ;  and  the  memory  of  their  ancient  prophets 
drew  along  with  it  the  promise  of  the  Prophet  now  to  come.  More 
probably  it  was  to  the  miracle  of  the  manna  that  their  minds  recurred, 
and  the  work  of  Moses  brought  to  recollection  the  promise  which 
:Moses  left  behind  him  for  the  last  days.  The  words  used  by  the  peo- 
ple leave  no  doubt  that  here  at  least  the  Prophet  is  identified  with  the 
Messiah,  whose  most  frequent  designation  seems  to  have  been  '  He 
that  Cometh  '(^latt.  11 :  3,  etc.),  or  more  fully,  'He  that  comcth  into 
the  world'  (comp.  chap.  1:9). 

Yer.  15.  Jesus  therefore  perceiving  that  they  were  about 
to  come  and  carry  him  off  to  make  him  king,  retired  again 
into  the  mountain  himself  alone.  The  thought  of  'Messiah' 
is  the  connecting  link  between  the  exclamation  related  in  the  last  verse 
and  the  purpose  here  mentioned.  The  Messiah  is  to  reign  in  the 
royal  city:  to  Jerusalem  therefore  they  would  now  carry  Him  by 
force  and  there  proclaim  Him  king.  Their  words  here  given  are 
taken  up  again  in  chap.  12:  13,  when  the  Galilean  multitudes  go  to 
meet  Him'^to  escort  Him  in  triumph  into  Jerusalem,  crying  out, 
'  Blessed  is  He  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  the  King  of  Israel.' 
But  the  hour  for  a  triumphant  entry  has  not  yet  arrived.  Jesus  reads 
their  purpose,  and  frustrates  it  by  retiring  again  to  '  the  mountain ' 
(ver  3)  from  which  He  came  down  to  teach  the  multitudes  and  to 
heaUheir  sick  (Luke  9  :  11).  The  first  two  Evangelists  tell  us  that 
He  retired  into  the  mountain  '  to  pray  ;'  but  the  two  motives  assigned 
are  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  each  other.  Our  Lord's  withdrawal 
from  view  after  His  miracles  is  frequently  noticed  in  this  Gospel.  The 
reason  here  explained  would  naturally  operate  at  other  times  also  ; 
but  there  are  peculiarities  of  language  which  seem  to  show  that  John 
beheld  in  all  the  '  signs ' — which  were  occasional  manifestations 
of  the  glory  of  Jesus — emblems  of  His  whole  manifestation,  of  all  that 
lay  between  His  coming  forth  from  the  Father  and  His  final  with- 
drawal from  the  world  and  return  to  the  Father.  There  is  a  beauti- 
ful harmony  between  the  prayer  of  which  other  Gospels  speak,  the 
solitariness  ('Himself  alone')  here  brought  before  us,  and  the  later 


142  JOHN  VI.  [6:  lG-18. 

16  And  when  evening   came,  his  disciples  went  down 

17  unto  the  sea;  and  they  entered  into  a  boat,  and 
were  going  over  the  sea  unto  Capernaum.  And  it 
was  now  dark,  and  Jesus  had    not  yet  come  to  them. 

18  And  the  sea  was  rising  by   reason  of  a   great  wind 

words  of  Jesus,    '  He  that  sent  me  is  with  me,  He  hath  not  left  me 
alone,  because  the  Father  is  with  me'  (chap.  16  :  32). 

No  one  can  read  the  four  narratives  of  this  miracle  without  being  struck  with 
their  essential  harmony  in  the  midst  of  apparent  diversities.  Every  narrative  con- 
tributes some  new  feature;  almost  everj' one  introduces  some  particular  which  we 
cannot  with  positive  certainty  adjust  with  the  other  narratives,  though  we  may  see 
clearly  that  in  more  ways  than  one  it  might  be  so  adjusted.  It  is  especially  necessary 
in  this  place  to  call  attention  to  these  other  narratives,  because  John  alone  records  the 
impression  made  upon  the  multitude,  and  as  has  been  well  suggested  by  Godety  this  im- 
pression may  explain  a  very  remarkable  word  used  both  by  Matthew  and  by  Mark. 
These  Evangelists  relate  (Matt.  14:  .32;  Mark  6:  45)  that  Jesus  '  compelled  '  His  dis- 
ciples to  return  to  their  boat  until  He  should  have  disniissod  the  people.  No  motive 
for  the  compulsion  is  supplied  by  the  two  writers  who  use  the  word.  If,  however,  this 
was  the  crisis  of  the  Galilean  ministry,  and  the  multitudee,  impressed  by  other  recent 
miracles,  and  moved  beyond  measure  by  the  las',  must  now  be  withheld  from  their 
premature  design  to  proclaim  Him  king,  it  becomes  uecessa-y  forcibly  to  separate  the 
disciples  as  well  as  Himself  from  the  e.xcited  crowds  in  the  hour  of  their  highly- 
wrought  enthusiasm.  Even  though  Jesus  Himself  were  absent,  yet  if  the  contagious 
excitement  of  the  people  should  communicate  itself  to  the  Galilean  disciples  also, 
the  plan  of  His  working  would  (humanly  speaking)  be  frustrated.  Perhaps,  too,  this 
decisive  breaking  with  the  impulses  of  the  multitude,  this  practical  renunciation  of 
the  honors  the  people  would  confer  and  of  the  political  sovereignty  to  which  they 
WDuld  raise  Him,  may  furnish  one  reason  for  John's  selection  of  this  miracle,  already 
80  well  known  in  the  Church.  Another  reason  is  made  evident  by  the  discourse  of 
this  chapter. 

Ver.  16.  And  -when  even  -was  now  come,  his  disciples 
went  down  unto  the  sea.  Before  Jesus  retired  to  the  mountain 
He  had  constrained  His  disciples  to  leave  Him  for  the  shore:  when 
they  had  left  He  dismissed  the  people,  withdrawing  from  them,  prob- 
ably by  exercising  such  influence  as  is  implied  in  chap.  5  :  13  ;  8  :  50 ; 
10:  89. 

Ver.  17.  And  entered  into  a  boat,  and  were  coming  over 
the  sea  unto  Capernaum.  And  darkness  had  already  come 
on,  and  Jesus  was  not  yet  come  to  them.  Probably  they  were 
intending  to  coast  along  the  shore  of  the  lake  between  Bethsaida-Julias 
and  Capernaum  :  in  this  they  were  no  doubt  following  their  Master's 
directions.  The  words  that  follow  show  clearly  that  they  expected 
Him  to  rejoin  them  at  some  point  on  the  coast, 

Ver.  18.  And  the  sea  was  raging  by  reason  of  a  great 
wind  that  blew.     The  darkness  and  the  storm  rendered  their  po- 


6:  10-21.]  JOHN  VI.  143 

19  that  blew.  When  therefore  they  had  rowed  about 
five  and  twenty  and  thirty  furlongs,  they  beheld 
Jesus  walking  on    the   sea,  and    drawing  nigh  unto 

20  the  boat :    and  they  were  afraid.     But  he  saith  unto 

21  them.  It  is  I ;  be  not  afraid.  They  were  willing 
therefore  to  receive  him  into  the  boat :  and  straight- 

sidon  one  of  great  peril.  There  had  arisen  one  of  those  sudden  and 
violent  squalls  to  which  all  inland  waters  surrounded  by  lofty  hills  in- 
tersected with  gullies  are  liable.  Many  travelers  bear  witness  to  the 
fact  that  such  storms  beat  with  peculiar  force  upon  the  sea  of  Galilee. 
In  the  present  instance  the  '  greai  wind '  would  seem  to  have  been 
from  the  north.  The  immediate  effect  of  the  storm  was  to  drive  the 
disciples  out  to  sea  till  they  reached  the  middle  of  the  lake,  which  is 
at  its  broadest  a  little  south  of  their  starting-point. 

Yer.  19.  So  "when  they  had  rowed  about  five  and 
twenty  or  thirty  furlongs.  If  the  wind  had  driven  them  south- 
wards soon  after  their  starting,  they  would  be  near  the  eastern  coast  at 
a  point  where  the  lake  is  about  forty  furlongs  broad.  If  therefore  they 
had  rowed  twenty-five  or  thirty  furlongs,  they  would  not  be  far  from 
'the  midst  of  the  sea'  (Mark  6  :  47).  The  agreement  between  the 
two  narratives  is  clearly  *  undesigned,'  and  therefore  the  more  inter- 
esting. They  beheld  Jesus  -walking  on  the  sea,  and  draw- 
ing nigh  unto  the  boat :  and  they  w^ere  afraid.  When  Jesus 
drew  near  to  the  boat,  it  was  the  '  fourth  watch  '  (Matt.  14 :  25),  and 
therefore  the  darkest  part  of  the  night ;  some  eight  or  nine  hours  had 
passed  since  they  left  Him  with  the  multitude.  The  wind  was  bois- 
terous, the  sea  raging,  their  strength  was  spent  with  rowing  (Mark 
6:  48),  when  suddenly  they  oeheld  Jesus  walking  on  the  sea,  in  the 
immediate  neighborhood  of  the  boat.  They  knew  not  that  it  was  He, 
and  were  terrified. 

Vers.  20,  21.  But  he  saith  unto  them,  It  is  I ;  be  not 
afraid.  They  w^ere  w^illing  therefore  to  receive  him  into 
the  boat.  His  voice  and  manner  were  enough  to  remove  all  their 
fears.  They  would  have  kept  away  from  the  apparition,  afi"righted  ; 
but  now  their  will  was  to  receive  their  Master,  This  renewed  mention 
of  the  'will'  (compare  chap.  5  :  6,  40)  is  striking  and  characteristic. 
In  the  first  two  Evangelists  we  read  of  our  Lord's  entering  the  boat, 
some  have  thought  that  the  words  here  present  a  difficulty  as  imply- 
ing a  desire  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  that  was  not  fulfilled.  But 
there  is  really  no  discrepancy  whatever.  John  mentions  the  will  only, 
assuming  that  every  reader  would  understand  that  the  will  was  car- 
ried into  effect  (comp.  1 :  43  ;  5 :  35)  — And  immediately  the 
boat  was  at  the  land  whither  they  w^ent.  They  were  making 
for  Capernaum,  and  this  town  they  reached  immediately.  It  is  plain 
that  John  intends  to  relate  what  was  not  an  ordinary  occurrence  but 
a  miracle.  The  first  two  Evangelists  do  not  speak  of  it,  but  their  words 


144  JOHN  VI.  [6:  21,  22. 

way  the    boat  was  at  the    land    whither   they    were 
going. 

Chapter  6 :  22-74. 

Passover  Discourses  of  Jesus. 

22      On  the  morrow  the  multitude  which  stood  on  the 
other  side  of  the  sea  saw  that  there  was  none  other 

are  in  perfect  harmony  with  John's  account,  for  immediately  after  the 
lulling  of  the  wind  they  mention  the  completion  of  the  voyage.  This 
is  the  fourth  of  the  *  signs  '  recorded  in  this  Gospel.  Unlike  the  for- 
mer miracle  (the  feeding  of  the  multitude),  it  is  not  mentioned  again  or 
in  any  way  expressly  referred  to ;  hence  we  have  less  certainty  as  to 
the  position  assigned  to  it  by  the  Evangelist.  That  to  him  it  was  not 
a  mere  matter  of  history  we  may  be  sure  ;  but  the  event  is  not  as 
closely  intex-woven  with  the  texture  of  his  narrative  as  are  the  other 
miracles  which  he  records.  The  thoughts  which  are  here  prominent 
are  the  separation  of  the  disciples  from  their  Lord,  their  difficulties 
amid  the  darkness  and  the  storm,  their  fear  as  they  dimly  see  Jesus 
approaching,  the  words  which  remove  their  fear,  their  '  will '  to  receive 
Him,  the  immediate  end  of  all  their  trouble  and  danger.  The  cardinal 
thought  is  their  safety  when  they  have  received  Jesus.  The  narrative 
is  connected  with  that  which  precedes  in  that,  here  as  there,  all  atten- 
tion is  concentrated  on  the  Redeemer  Himself,  who  in  sovereign  power 
and  in  infinite  grace  manifests  His  glory.  It  is  still  more  closely 
joined  with  what  comes  after,  as  it  teaches  on  the  one  hand  the  safety 
of  all  who  are  with  Him  (vers.  37-39),  and  on  the  other  the  necessity 
of  man's  receiving  Him,  opening  his  heart  to  His  words,  committing 
Himself  to  Him  by  faith  (ver.  40).  We  cannot  doubt  that  the  ques- 
tion of  Jesus  and  the  answer  of  the  twelve,  of  which  we  read  in  ver. 
68,  are  closely  linked  with  the  teaching  of  that  night  in  which  the  dis- 
ciples found  at  once  the  end  of  peril  and  rest  from  toil  when  they  saw 
and  received  their  Lord. 

Passover  Discourses  of  Jesus,  vers.  22-74. 
Contents.  In  the  miracle  of  the  multiplying  of  the  bread  .Tesus  has  symbolically 
presented  Himself  as  the  true  bread  of  life.  This  thought  is  now  unfolded  in  the  va- 
rious discourses  with  which  the  remainder  of  the  chapter  is  occupied,  while  at  the 
same  time  the  effect  of  these  discourses  is  traced  upon  the  different  classes  of  hearers 
introduced  to  us.  The  subordinate  parts  of  this  section  are  determined  by  the  men- 
tion of  these  classes— (1)  vers.  22-40,  a  discourse  addressed  to  the  'multitude,'  which 
must  here,  as  elsewhere,  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  'Jews;'  (2)  vers.  41-51,  a 
discourse  to  the  '  Jews '  who  had  '  murmured  '  at  the  words  spoken  to  the  multitude. 
The  discourse  contains  the  same  great  truths  as  those  previously  dwelt  upon,  but  in  a 
sharper  and  more  pointed  form  ;  (3)  vers.  52-59,  a  discourse  by  which  the  '  Jews '  are 
Btill  further  irritated.  Formerly  they  murmured ;  now  they 'strive  among  (hemselveB, 


6 :  20,  24.]  JOHN  VI.  145 

^  boat   there,  save  one,   and  that   Jesus   entered   not 
with  his  disciples  into  the  boat,  but  that  his*  disciples 

23  went  away  alone   (howbeit   there   came   "boats  from 
Tiberias  nv^h.    unto  the    place    where   they  ate   the 

24  bread  after  the  Lord   had   given  thanks) :  when  the 

1  Gr.  Utile  boat.  "  Gr.  little  boats. 

and  the  discourse  becomes  still  sharper  and  more  pointed  than  before  ;  (4)  vers.  60-66, 
in  which  the  effect  of  the  truths  spoken  by  Jesus  shows  itself  even  upon  the  disciples, 
many  of  whom  are  so  offended  that  they  walk  no  more  with  Him  ;  (5)  vers.  67-71, — 
while  man3"  of  the  disciples  are  thus  offended,  the  Twelve,  with  the  exception  of  Ju- 
das, are  drawn  more  closely  to  Jesus,  and  Peter  in  their  name  makes  confession  of  his 
faith. 

Yer.  22.  The  day  foUcwing,  the  multitude  vrhich  stood 
on  the  other  side  of  the  sea  saw^  that  there  was  none  other 
little  boat  there,  save  one,  and  that  Jesus  -went  not  with 
his  disciples  into  the  boat,  but  that  his  disciples  went 
away  alone.  During  the  night  of  the  storm  the  multitude  remained 
near  the  scene  of  the  miracle.  In  the  morning  they  are  gathered  on 
the  north-eastern  coast,  deliberating  how  Jesus  might  be  found.  They 
saw  no  boat  on  the  shore  save  one  little  boat  too  small  to  hold  the 
twelve  disciples,  who  could  not  therefore  have  returned  in  it  to  take 
away  their  Master  :  yet  it  was  certain  that  when  the  disciples  set  sail 
the  evening  before  Jesus  did  not  go  with  them.  The  natural  inference 
was  that  He  was  still  on  the  eastern  shore,  but  that  His  disciples  were 
at  Capernaum  or  some  neighboring  place  on  the  other  side  of  the  sea, 

Ver.  28.  Howbeit  there  came  boats  from  Tiberias  nigh 
unto  the  place  where  they  did  eat  the  bread,  after  that 
the  Lord  had  given  thanks.  Whilst  they  were  still  in  wonder 
and  doubt,  other  boats  came  across  the  sea  near  to  the  scene  of  the 
miracle  of  the  preceding  day.  These  boats  were  from  Tiberias,  and 
from  the  boatmen  who  brought  them  the  multitude  would  learn  at  once 
that  neither  Jesus  nor  His  disciples  had  gone  thither. 

Ver.  24.  When  the  multitude  therefore  saw  that  Jesus 
was  not  there,  neither  his  disciples,  they  themselves  got 
into  the  little  boats,  and  came  to  Capernaum,  seeking  for 
Jesus.  If  Jesus  was  neither  on  the  eastern  shore  nor  at  Tiberias^  He 
might  be  sought  near  Capernaum,  in  the  direction  of  which  town  the 
disciples  had  sailed.  John's  words  clearly  imply  that  there  was  an 
eager  and  diligent  search  for  Jesus  on  the  part  of  the  multitude  before 
they  left  the  spot  where  they  had  witnessed  His  power.  The  promi- 
nence given  to  the  thought  of  Jesus  in  these  verses  is  very  marked. 
What  is  said  of  the  disciples  has  no  independent  value :  their  move- 
ments are  desci'ibed  solely  that  light  may  be  thrown  upon  those  of 
their  Master.  When  convinced  that  it  was  vain  further  to  prosecute 
the  search  in  that  region,  the  multitude  obtained  possession  of  the 
smaller  boats,  and  came  to  Capernaum  seeking  Jesus. 
10 


146  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  25,  26. 

multitude  therefore  saw  that  Jesus  was  not  there, 
neither  his  disciples,  they  themselves  got  into  the 
^  boats,    and    came    to    Capernaum,   seeking    Jesus. 

25  And  when  they  found  him  on  the  other  side  of  the 
sea,  they  said  unto  him,  Kabbi,  when   camest  thou 

26  hither  ?  Jesus  answered  them  and  said.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  yru.  Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye 
saw  signs,  but  because  ye  ate  of  the  loaves,  and  were 

1  Gr.  little  boats. 

Ver.  25.  And  when  they  had  found  him  on  the  other  side 
of  the  sea,  they  said  unto  him,  Rabbi,  -when  camest  thou 
hither?  The  '  other  side'  denotes  the  western  coast.  Their  ques- 
tion on  finding. Jesus  in  Capernaum  but  partly  expresses  tlieir  thoughts, 
which  would  rest  as  much  on  the  hoiv  as  on  the  *  when'  of  His  coming 
to  this  place.  He  had  not  left  the  eastern  shore  with  His  disciples; 
the  storm  of  the  night  must  have  forbidden  any  attempt  to  make  the 
passage  then  ;  and,  as  they  well  knew,  He  had  not  come  to  the  west- 
ern shore  in  their  company.  The  question  is  not  answered,  but  the 
eager  search  which  it  implied  is  made  to  lead  the  way  to  deeper  in- 
struction as  to  the  miracle  which  had  drawn  them  to  follow  Him. 

Ver.  26.  Jesus  answered  them  and  said,  Verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  signs,  but 
because  ye  did  eat  of  the  loaves,  and  were  satisfied.  This 
solemn  declaration  is  only  seemingly  discordant  with  ver.  2  or  ver.  14. 
Those  who  witnessed  a  mii-acle  of  Jesus,  and  did  not  understand  its 
significance  might  be  said  to  see  the  sign  and  yet  not  to  see  it.  In- 
deed, ver.  14  seems  to  imply  a  third  condition  of  mind,  intermediate 
between  these.  Those  who  had  eaten  of  the  loaves  saw  in  the  miracle 
the  proof  that  Jesus  was  the  Prophet  who  should  come:  they  saw 
that  the  wonder  was  significant,  but  the  words  before  us  show  that 
even  this  stood  below  the  true  perception  of  the  '  sign.'  The  miracle 
had  led  the  thoughts  of  the  multitude  to  the  power  and  dignity  of  the 
miracle-worker,  but  had  suggested  nothing  of  a  higher  and  a  spiritual 
work,  symbolized  by  the  material  bounty  that  had  been  bestowed.  The 
design  of  the  work  in  its  relation  to  the  Saviour  was  to  manifest  His 
glory  as  the  Giver  of  the  highest  blessings  ;  in  its  relation  to  the  peo- 
ple, to  fix  their  eyes  on  Him  and  to  awaken  their  desire  for  that  of 
which  the  bread  had  been  the  sign.  Part  of  this  purpose  has  been 
attained, — they  have  sought  Him  eagerly,  with  toil  and  trouble  : — He 
must  now  so  complete  their  training  that  they  may  be  led  to  leave  the 
carnal  and  seek  the  spiritual,  that  they  may  be  brought  to  behold  in 
His  deeds  not  merely  the  tokens  of  His  power  to  satisfy  every  earthly 
desire  of  His  followers,  but  the  impress  of  His  Divine  character  and 
■work. 


G:  27.]  JOHN  VI.  147 

27  filled.  Work  not  for  the  meat  which  perisheth,  but 
for  the  meat  whicli  abideth  unto  eternal  life,  which 
the  Son  of   man  .shall  give  unto   you :    for  him  the 

Ver.  27.     "Work  not  for  the  eating  which  perisheth.  The 

rendering  '  work "  is  reijuired  to  bring  out  tlie  connection  with  the 
following  verse,  in  whicli  the  same  word  is  used.  The  language  of  the 
original  is  very  expressive:  ,'  V>ork,'  use  all  the  energies  of  your  na- 
ture, not  unto  partaking  of  perishable  but  of  imperishable  food.  It  is 
not  an  act  of  life  but  the  active  life  itself  that  is  referred  to,  and  the 
object  of  this  whole  life.  When  we  bring  together  this  verse  and  that 
which  precedes,  we  cannot  doubt  that  our  Lord,  in  speaking  of  work- 
ing for  perishable  food,  alludes  to  the  labor  which  the  multitude  had 
undergone  in  their  persistent  search  for  Him.  As  their  object  in  thus 
seeking  Him  had  been  carnal,  not  spiritual,  this  act  of  theirs  (good 
and  wise  in  itself,— most  blessed,  had  the  aim  been  higher  and  more 
true)  was  a  fitting  type  of  their  life,  a  life  occupied  with  the  search 
after  material  good  and  the  satisfaction  of  lower  wants  and  desires. — 
But  for  the  eating  which  abideth,  unto  eternal  life  which 
the  Son  of  man  shall  give  unto  you.  In  contrast  with  what 
they  had  sought  in  thus  toiling  to  discover  Him,  Jesus  sets  the  feast 
which  it  is  His  glory  to  offer  and  of  which  they  should  be  eager  to 
partake.  As  in  4 :  U  He  had  spoken  of  the  gift  of  water  which  had 
power  to  quench  for  ever  the  recipient's  thirst,  so  here  He  speaks  of 
an  eating  that  abides  and  never  perishes.  That  verse  and  this  are 
closely  parallel,  and  each  helps  to  explain  the  other.  In  the  one 
Jesus  says  what  the  water  that  He  giveth  shall  become  in  him  that  re- 
ceiveth  it:  here  in  like  manner  it  is  not  of  meat  that  He  speaks,  but 
of  <  eating,' — not  of  food  itself,  but  of  food  appropriated.  In  both 
passages  the  words  '  unto  eternal  life  '  occur  ;  and  in  each  case  there 
is  some  difficulty  in  determining  whether  the  phrase  belongs  to  the 
word  preceding  or  to  the  whole  thought  of  the  clause.  Yet,  as  in  the 
first  it  is  probable  that  '  life  eternal'  is  the  end  attained  when  the 
fountain  is  opened  in  the  soul,  so  in  this  verse  '  unto '  does  not  seem 
to  belong  to  '  abideth,'  but  to  express  the  object  of  that  '  eating'  for 
which  they  may  and  ought  to  work.  Not  the  eating  that  perisheth, 
but  the  eating  that  abideth,  must  absorb  their  labor,  that  they  may 
thus  win  eternal  life.  If  this  is  the  connection  intended  by  John, 
we  must  certainly  join  the  second  relative  <  which'  (not  with  'eating,' 
but)  with  the  words  that  immediately  precede,  viz.  '  eternal  life.' 
There  is  nothing  difficult  in  such  a  connection  of  the  words ;  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  easier  than  any  other,  and  best  agrees  with  the  follow- 
ing verses  and  with  other  passages  in  the  Gospel.  Almost  uniformly 
in  this  chapter  Jesus  speaks  of  Himself  as  the  bread  of  life,  and  of 
the  Father  as  the  Giver  of  the  bread,  while  '  eternal  life'  is  the  result 
of  receiving  Him  as  the  living  bread  (vers.  33,  51,  54).  A  close  par- 
allel is  found  in  chap.  10 :  28  :  'I  give  unto  them  eternal  life,'  as  also 
in  chap.  17:  2;  and  the  connection  of  the  'Son  of  man'   with  this 


148  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  28. 

28  Father,  even  God,  hath  sealed.     They  said  therefore 
unto  him,  What  must  we  do,  that  we  may  work  the 

gift  reminds  us  at  once  of  chap.  3:  14.  How  this  gift  will  become 
theirs,  the  later  verses  explain :  the  two  points  here  are  that  this  life 
is  obtained  from  the  Son  of  man — from  the  God-man  alone,  and  that 
it  is  a  free  gift  from  Him.  This  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  '  work- 
ing' of  which  Jesus  has  spoken.  The  multitudes  had  toiled,  in  that 
they  had  put  aside  all  obstacles  to  come  to  Him:  having  come  to  Him 
they  may  receive  His  free  gift.  The  reception  of  the  gift  is  opposed 
to  laboring  for  wages  or  for  merit,  but  not  to  earnest  effort.  The  gift 
can  be  bestowed  in  its  fulness  on  those  only  whose  one  thought  and 
one  effort  are  bent  on  receiving  it :  were  there  no  such  activity  on 
our  part,  we  could  not  be  in  a  position  to  receive  the  gift  without 
destroying  the  nature  we  possess. — For  him  the  Father,  God, 
did  seal.  For  this  very  purpose  that  He  might  be  the  Giver  of 
eternal  life,  was  He  made  the  Son  of  man,  was  He  sent  by  the  Father 
into  the  world.  (Compare  chap.  10:  36  ;  17:  2.)  He  came  commis- 
sioned by  the  Father:  on  Him  the  Father's  seal  was  set.  The  refer- 
ence is  not  to  the  miracle  just  related,  as  if  Jesus  would  say  that  what 
they  had  themselves  seen  was  the  Father's  attestation  of  Him,  the 
evidence  which  should  have  led  them  to  believe  in  Him.  This  is  but 
a  small  part  of  the  truth,  as  what  is  said  in  chap.  5  on  the  witness  of 
the  Father  very  plainly  shows.  There,  however,  the  thought  is  made 
to  rest  on  the  continued  and  abiding  testimony  of  the  Father:  here 
the  whole  attestation  is  looked  upon  as  concenti-ated  in  one  past  act 
of  the  Father,  as  included  and  implied  in  the  act  of  '  sending '  the 
Son;  and  this  Father  is  'God,'  that  God  whom  they  themselves  al- 
lowed to  be  the  supreme  source  and  end  of  all  things.  The  special 
reference  to  the  Father  in  this  verse,  where  Jesus  speaks  of  the  gift 
of  eternal  life,  receives  its  explanation  from  ver.  57  (which  see). 

Ver.  28.  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  "What  must  we 
do,  that  v^e  may  work  the  w^orks  of  God?  Our  Lord's  an- 
swer seems  to  have  been  but  little  comprehended  by  '  the  multitude.' 
They  reply  with  an  earnest  inquiry,  taking  up  all  that  they  have 
understood,  but  missing  the  central  point  of  His  words.  He  had  first 
bidden  them  work.  His  last  word  had  spoken  of  the  Divine  authority 
He  bore:  their  answer  deals  with  'works  of  God,'  but  contains  no 
reference  to  eternal  life  or  to  the  promise  of  a  free  gift  from  the  Son 
of  man.  The  works  of  the  law  were  to  them  a  familiar  thought,  and 
they  understood  that  God  through  His  new  prophet  was  commanding 
them  to  do  some  new  woi'k.  Their  question  :  '  What  must  we  do,' 
shows  a  teachable  disposition,  and  a  willingness  to  learn  from  Him 
what  Avas  the  will  of  God.  But  what  did  they  mean  by  '  the  works 
of  God  ?'  The  expression  is  used  in  various  senses  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  works  of  the  Lord  may  be  the  works  done  by  Him, -or 
they  may  be  the  works  which  He  commands  and  which  are  according 
to  His  mind.    In  this  verse  we  cannot  think  of  miracles,  nor  is  it  easy 


6:  29,  30.]  JOHN  VI.  149 

29  works  of  God  ?     Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  tlieni, 
This  is  the  work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  on  him 

30  whom  Mie  hath  sent.     They  said  therefore  unto  him, 
What  then  doest  thou  for  a  sign,  tliat  we  may  see, 

^  Or,  he  sent. 

to  believe  that  the  people  can  have  had  in  their  thoughts  the  works 
which  God  produces  in  tliose  who  are  His.  In  its  connection  here, 
the  expression  recalls  such  passages  as  Jer.  48:  10;  1  Cor.  15:  58; 
Rev.  2 :  2G,  The  whole  phrase  (with  slight  alteration)  occurs  in 
Num.  8:  11,  in  the  Septuagint:  'Aaron  shall  offer  the  Levites  before 
the  Lord,  .  .  .  that  they  may  work  the  works  of  the  Lord.'  As  the 
meaning  in  these  passages  is  the  works  which  the  Lord  would  have  them 
do,  as  the  works  of  the  law  are  those  which  the  law  prescribes,  so 
here  the  works  of  God  signify  those  which  He  commands,  and  which 
therefore  are  pleasing  to  Him. 

Ver.  29.  Jesus  ans-wered  and  said  unto  them,  This  is  the 
■work  of  God,  that  ye  believe  in  him  whom  he  sent.  The 
one  work  which  God  would  have  them  do  is  believing  in  Him  whom 
He  sent.  The  people  had  spoken  of  *  works,'  thinking  of  outward 
deeds  ;  but  that  which  God  commands  is  one  work,  faith  in  Jesus. 
This  faith  leads  to  union  with  Him  and  participation  of  His  Spirit, 
and  thus  includes  in  itself  all  works  that  are  pleasing  to  God.  We 
must  not  suppose  that  our  Lord  intends  to  rebuke  their  question  : 
*  AVhat  must  we  do.'  as  if  He  would  say :  It  is  not  doing,  but  believing. 
The  act  of  believing  in  Jesus,  the  soul's  casting  itself  on  Him  with 
perfect  trust,  is  here  spoken  of  as  a  work,  as  something  which  requires 
the  exercise  of  man's  will  and  calls  forth  determination  and  effort. 
It  is  very  noticeable  that  these  words  of  Jesus  directly  touch  that 
thought  in  ver.  27,  which  their  answer  (ver.  28)  neglected.  The 
work  of  theirs  of  which  He  had  spoken  was  their  toil  to  come  to  Him : 
He  had  prescribed  no  other  work,  but  had  sought  to  lead  them  to  the 
higher  object,  the  attainment  of  the  abiding  nourishment,  unto  eternal 
life  offered  by  the  Son  of  man.  So  here :  every  disturbing  or  extra- 
neous thought  is  put  aside ;  and,  with  even  unusual  directness,  force, 
and  simplicity,  Jesus  shows  that  the  one  cardinal  requirement  of  the 
Father  is  the  reception  of  the  Son  by  faith. 

Ver.  30.  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  What  then  doest 
thou  as  a  sign,  that  we  may  see,  and  believe  thee  ?  What 
dost  thou  "work  ?  The  words  of  Jesus  had  now  become  too  plain 
to  be  misunderstood.  It  was  clear  that  He  would  turn  them  away 
from  such  works  as  they  had  had  in  view,  and  fix  all  thought  upon 
Himself;  while  at  the  same  time  His  words  breathed  no  spirit  of  m^i-e 
self-assertion,  but  claimed  to  be  an  expression  of  the  Divine  will. 
Such  a  claim  no  other  prophet  had  ever  made ;  suoh  a  claim  can  only 
be  justified  by  some  special  sign  which  no  one  can  challenge  or  mis- 
take; and  the  sign  must  correspond  with  the  claim.     The  day  before 


150  JOHN  IV.  [6:  31,32. 

31  and  believe  thee?  what  workest  thou?     Our  fathers 
ate  the  manna  in  the  wilderness ;  as  it  is  written,  He 

32  gave  them  bread  out  of  heaven  to  eat.     Jesus  there- 
fore said  unto  them,  Yerily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 

Jesus  had  been  with  them  as  a  Teacher  only :  the  miracle  had  con- 
strained them  to  acknowledge  Him  as  '  the  Prophet  who  should  come.' 
But  the  words  He  has  just  used  can  only  suit  One  who  is  higher  even 
than  Moses.  Before  they  can  believe  Him  when  He  thus  speaks 
(note  the  significant  change  from  '  believe  in  Him,'  ver.  29,  to  '  believe 
thee,'  i.  e.  accept  thy  claims),  some  sign  equal  to  the  greatest  wrought 
by  Moses,  or  even  some  greater  sign,  must  be  displayed, 

Ver.  31.  Our  fathers  did  eat  the  manna  in  the  wilderness. 
Amongst  the  miracles  wrought  by  Moses,  the  Jews  seem  (and  with 
reason)  to  have  assigned  to  the  manna  a  foremost  place.  In  a  Hebrew 
commentary  on  Ecclesiastes  there  is  preserved  a  sajdng  of  great  inter- 
est in  connection  with  this  passage :  '  As  the  first  Redeemer  made  the 
manna  to  descend,  as  it  is  written,  Behold  I  will  rain  bread  from 
heaven  for  you  ;  so  the  later  Redeemer  also  shall  make  the  manna  to 
descend,  as  it  is  written,  May  there  be  abundance  of  corn  in  the 
earth'  (Ps.  72:  19). — As  it  is  -written,  He  gave  them  bread 
out  of  heaven  to  eat.  Of  the  many  characteristics  distinguishing 
the  miracle  of  the  manna,  one  is  here  dwelt  upon — neither  the  abun- 
dance of  its  supply  nor  its  continuance,  but  its  source:  it  was  'bread 
out  of  heaven.'  The  bread  with  which  they  themselves  had  just  been 
fed,  though  marvellously  increased  in  quantity,  was  still  natural 
bread,  the  bread  of  earth:  'bread  out  of  heaven'  was  the  proof  re- 
ceived by  their  fathers  that  their  Benefactor  was  the  God  of  heaven. 
What  similar  evidence  could  Jesus  offer?  The  words  here  quoted 
from  Scripture  do  not  exactly  agree  with  any  passage  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. In  Ps.  78:  24  we  read  (following  the  Greek  version):  'And 
He  rained  for  them  manna  to  eat,  and  gave  them  bread  of  heaven ;' 
and  in  Ex.  16:  4:  '  Behold  I  rain  for  you  bread  out  of  heaven.'  The 
words  in  the  verse  before  us  are  therefore  substantially  a  quotation 
from  the  psalm,  with  one  important  change  introduced  from  the  nar- 
rative of  Exodus,  '  out  of  heaven '  for  '  of  heaven.'  The  change  is  im- 
portant, because  it  points  more  distinctly  to  the  source  of  the  supply, 
and  not  its  quality  only,  and  because  the  expression  'out  of  heaven' 
is  taken  up  by  our  Lord  and  used  by  Him  with  marked  emphasis. 

Ver.  32.  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily, 
I  say  unto  you.  The  gravity  of  the  truth  declared  in  this  verse  is 
indicated  by  the  solemn  '  Verily,  verily,'  which  now  occurs  for  the 
second  time  in  this  discourse. — Moses  gave  you  not  the  bread 
out  of  heaven ;  but  my  Father  giveth  you  the  bread  out 
of  heaven,  the  true  bread.  If  we  compare  these  words  with  ver. 
26,  in  which  the  formula,  'Verily,  verily,'  is  first  used,  we  easily 
trace  the  advance  in  the  thought.     There,  in  general  terms,  the  peo- 


6:33.]  JOHN  VI.  151 

It  was  not  Moses  that  gave  you  the  bread  out  of 

heaven ;  but  my  Father  giveth  you  the  true  bread 

33  out  of  heaven.     For  the  bread  of  God  is  that  which 

Cometh  down  out  of  heaven,   and  giveth  life  unto 

pie  are  enjoined  not  to  set  their  thought  on  the  perishable  food :  here 
Jesus  declares  that  the  true  bread  given  out  of  heaven  is  not  the 
manna,  but  that  which  His  Father  is  at  this  moment  offering  them. 
In  the  words  of  ver.  81,  'he  gave  them  bread,'  the  multitude  may 
have  had  Moses  in  their  thoughts ;  but  that  is  not  the  meaning  of  the 
Psalmist,  the  context  having  the  clearest  refei^ence  to  God.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  our  Lord  here  mentions  Moses  only  to  point  out  more  dis- 
tinctly the  past  and  inferior  gift  of  the  manna  by  the  servant  of  God, 
in  contrast  with  the  true  bread  now  offered  to  them  by  the  Father. 
It  was  not  Mcses  who  gave  the  manna;  still  less  had  their  fathers 
received  from  him  the  true  bread  of  heaven.  The  Father,  who  gave 
to  their  fathers  the  symbol,  offers  the  reality  now.  '  My  Father,' 
Jesus  says,  because  He  is  leading  His  hearers  onwards  to  the  truth 
declared  in  the  next  two  verses,  that  the  '  true  bread '  given  out  of 
heaven  is  Himself,  the  Son. 

Ver.  33.  For  the  bread  of  God  is  that  which  cometh 
down  out  of  heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto  the  w^orld.  The 
'bread  of  God'  is  the  bread  which  God  gives  (ver.  32).  It  is  not  easy 
to  decide  on  the  translation  of  this  verse.  The  Greek  equally  admits 
of  two  renderings — either  'he  that  cometh,'  or  'that  (bread)  which 
cometh.'  If  the  former  is  correct,  our  Lord  begins  here  to  identify 
Himself  with  the  '  true  bread ;'  if  the  latter,  the  figure  is  retained 
unexplained  until  ver.  35.  The  expressions  in  vers.  50  and  58  do 
not  decide  the  point ;  for  after  ver.  35  the  descent  from  heaven  might 
with  equal  propriety  be  connected  either  with  the  bread  or  with  Him 
whom  the  bread  symbolized.  Nor  does  the  present  tense  '  cometh 
down '  compel  us  to  refer  the  word  to  the  bread  ;  for  Jesus  might  be 
designated  'He  that  cometh  from  heaven'  (comp.  chap.  3 :  31)  as 
correctly  as  '  He  that  came  from  heaven  : '  one  description  relates  to 
nature  and  origin,  the  other  to  a  past  fact  of  history.  On  the  whole, 
however,  it  seems  best  to  carry  on  the  thought  of  the  bread  in  this 
verse.  The  very  word  'come  down'  is  used  (Ex.  16)  in  the  account 
of  the  manna ;  and  the  answer  of  the  multitude  in  ver.  34  seems  to 
show  that  no  new  and  (to  them)  strange  thought  has  come  in  since 
the  mention  of  the  Father's  gift.  But  if  the  figure  is  still  continued 
in  this  verse,  it  is  only  a  thin  veil  that  conceals  the  truth.  In  ver.  27 
the  Son  of  man  is  He  who  gives  eternal  life ;  here  it  is  the  bread  of 
God  that  giveth  life  unto  the  world. — The  last  word  is  very  significant. 
The  manna  had  been  for  'the  fathers;'  the  true  bread  is  for  the  world. 
We  are  reminded  at  once  of  chap.  3  :  16  :  '  God  so  loved  the  world,' 
and  of  chap.  4:  42:  'the  Saviour  of  the  world.'  The  unlimited  offer 
also  recalls  chap.  4 :  14 :  '  Whosoever  hath  drunk  of  the  water  that 
I  will  give  him;'  and  in  both  cases  the  result  is  the_same. 


152  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  34,  35. 

34  the   world.     Tliey   said   therefore   unto   him,  Lord, 

35  evermore  give  us  this  bread.  Jesus  said  unto  them, 
I  am  the  bread  of  life  :  he  that  cometh  to  me  shall 
not  hunger,  and  he  that  believeth  on   me  shall  never 

Yer.  34.  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Lord,  evermore 
give  us  this  bread.  We  cannot  see  in  these  words  the  mere  ex- 
pression of  a  desire  that  earthly  wants  may  be  satisfied  (comp.  4:  15). 
This  would  have  incurred  rebuke  (comp.  ver.  26),  and  not  led  to 
clearer  teaching,  such  as  is  found  in  the  coming  verses.  Jesus,  more- 
over, is  not  dealing  with  'the  Jews'  (who  meet  us  at  ver.  41),  but 
with  the  multitude — people  who  were,  indeed,  no  more  than  half 
enlightened,  but  whose  minds  were  not  shut  against  the  truth.  His 
words  in  the  following  verses  are  altogether  such  as  He  was  wont  to 
address  to  men  who  truly  sought  the  light,  though  not  fully  conscious 
of  what  they  sought. 

Ver.  35.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  I  am  the  bread  of  life,— 
the  bread,  that  is,  that  contains  life  in  itself,  and  thus  is  able  to  give 
life  unto  the  world.  The  Father  giveth  '  the  true  bread  '  (ver.  32)  in 
giving  His  Son  ;  the  Son  of  man  giveth  eternal  life  (ver.  27)  in  im- 
parting Himself.  To  this  declaration  everything  has  been  leading, — 
the  bread  of  the  miracle,  the  manna,  every  reproof  (ver.  26),  every 
encouragement  (ver.  27). — He  that  is  coming  to  me  shall  in  no 
"wise  hunger.  The  original  words  are  chosen  with  exquisite  delicacy. 
The  figure  is  not  that  of  one  who  has  achieved  a  toilsome  and  lengthened 
journey  (as  if  the  words  ran,  'he  that  at  length  has  reached  me'), 
but  that  of  one  whose  resolve  is  taken,  and  who  sets  out  in  the  right 
way, — he  that  '  is  coming'  unto  Jesus  shall  cease  to  hunger.  Other 
passages  may  speak  of  the  disciple  as  one  who  has  come  to  Jesus  ;  this 
with  equal  truth  represents  him  as  one  who  is  coming  toicards  Jesus, 
whose  aim  and  desire  and  constant  thoughts  are  towards  his  Lord. 
The  hunger  of  the  spirit  ceases,  the  restless  want  and  search  for  satis- 
faction are  at  an  end;  the  'true  bread,'  that  which  gives  real  sus- 
tenance, is  received. — And  he  that  believeth  in  me  shall  in  no 
•wise  ever  thirst.  In  these  words  we  have  an  image  similar  to  the 
last,  but  not  the  same.  The  quenching  of  thirst  is  even  a  stronger 
figure  than  the  satisfaction  of  hunger,  and  thus  (as  usually  in  the  po- 
etry of  the  Old  Testament)  the  thought  of  the  second  member  is  an  ad- 
vance upon  that  of  the  first.  It  may  seem  remarkable  that  '  ever '  is 
not  joined  with  both  members  of  the  verse  ;  but  (as  the  other  words 
also  show)  the  first  simply  expresses  once  for  all  the  cessation  of  hun- 
ger,— hunger  is  at  an  end  ;  whilst  the  second  suggests  the  continuous 
presence  of  that  which  banishes  thirst.  Faith  is  set  forth  in  both 
clauses.  The  first  presents  it  in  the  simplicity  and  power  of  the  act  of 
will, — the  will  turned  towards  Jesus  ;  the  second  brings  it  into  prom- 
inence as  the  continuous  movement  of  the  soul  towards  union  with 
Him,     It  is  not  right  therefore  to  interpret  the  '  coming '  as  part  of 


6:  36, 37.]  JOHN  VI.  153 

36  thirst.     But  I  said  unto  you,  that  ye  have  seen  me, 

37  and   ye    believe   not.      All   that  which  the    Father 
giveth  me  shall  come  unto  me ;  and  him  that  cometh 

the  *  believing,'  or  to  take  either  as  denoting  a  momentary  act  belong- 
ing to  the  beginning  only  of  the  Christian  life.  Each  figure,  with  a 
force  peculiarly  its  own,  expresses  the  abiding  relation  of  the  true  dis- 
ciple to  his  Lord ;  but  only  by  a  combination  such  as  is  here  given 
could  we  have  vividly  presented  to  us  both  the  immediate  and  the  con- 
tinuom  satisfaction  of  spirit  which  Jesus  imparts.  There  is  probably 
another  reason  for  the  introduction  of  the  figure  of  '  thirst.'  It  is  not 
with  the  manna  alone  that  Jesus  is  now  dealing.  He  had  fed  the 
multitude  with  bread,  but  the  meal  at  which  He  entertained  them  as 
His  guests  was  designed  to  be  the  symbol  of  the  Paschal  feast  (see 
the  note  on  ver.  4).  It  was  paternal  therefore  thus  to  enlarge  the  sym- 
bols, that  this  feast  may  be  kept  in  mind,  and  the  way  pirepared  for 
the  words  of  later  verses  ( 53-50  i. 

Yer.  36.  But  I  said  unto  you.  that  ye  have  indeed  seen 
me,  and  believe  not.  When  had  such  words  been  uttered  ?  Cer- 
tainly the  reference  is  not  to  chap.  5 :  37,  spoken  in  Jerusalem  to  the 
Jews,  not  to  the  multitude  in  Galilee.  It  is  not  likely  that  Jesus  is 
speaking  of  words  of  censure  not  recorded  in  this  Gospel :  and  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  understand  the  simple  expression  '  I  said  unto  you  ' 
in  the  sense,  '  I  would  have  you  know,'  '  this  is  what  I  would  say.' 
We  must  take  the  words  as  referring  to  the  substance,  to  the  spirit  if 
not  the  letter,  of  something  previously  said  in  this  chapter,  and  we 
can  do  this  without  any  violence  of  interpretation.  It  is  remarkable 
that  the  people  themselves  have  used  words  almost  identical  (ver.  30) : 
'What  doest  Thou  as  a  sign,  that  we  may  see  and  believe  Thee?' — that 
is,  may  see  Thee  in  Thy  working,  and  believe  Thee,  This  is  a  con- 
fession on  their  part  that  as  yet  they,  had  seen  no  sign  that  had  led 
them  to  see  and  believe  Him.  The  words  of  Jesus  in  ver.  26  imply 
that  in  truth  they  had  not  seen  '  signs  :'  they  had  seen  His  miracles, 
but  these  had  not  so  proved  themselves  to  be  '  signs  '  as  to  lead  the 
people  to  see  and  believe  Him.  The  charge,  therefore,  that  '  they  see- 
ing saw  not '  is  perfectly  equivalent  to  what  is  said  in  that  verse  ;  they 
had  indeed  seen  Him  in  the  works  which  were  the  manifestation  of 
Himself,  but  they  had  not  been  led  to  faith.  The  charge  is  very  grave, 
but  it  is  not  made  in  anger,  nor  does  it  leave  the  accused  in  hopelessness  : 
not  judgment,  but  encouragement,  is  the  spirit  that  pervades  this  part 
of  the  discourse.  Perhaps  it  is  for  this  very  reason  that  the  word  is 
'  I  said,'  not  '  I  say.'  The  fact  was  so  ;  it  may  be  so  still ;  but  the 
state  is  one  that  need  not  last. — even  now  it  may  pass  away. 

Yer.  37.  All  that  which  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come 
to  me ;  and  him  that  is  coming  to  me  I  will  in  no  w^ise  cast 
out.  These  words  have  been  understood  by  some  as  a  reproach : 
'  How  difiFerent  are  ye  from  those  whom  my  Father  giveth  me  1'  but 
such  an  interpretation  is  quite  inconsistent  with  the  context.  At  pres- 


154  JOHN  VI.  [6:  38. 

38  to  me  I  will  in  no  wise  cast  out.     For  I  am  come 
down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the 

ent,  indeed,  those  to  whom  Jesus  speaks  are  not  believers  ;  but  even 
in  their  case  His  mission  may  not  be  a  failure, — they  may  be  given  to 
Him,  and  He  will  not  cast  them  out.  Up  to  this  point  the  only  gift 
spoken  of  has  been  a  gift  to  men  (vers.  27,  31,  32,  33,  34),  especially  the 
Father's  gift  of  the  Son  to  be  the  bread  of  life.  Here  the  converse  is 
suddenly  introduced— the  Father's  gift  to  the  Son.  What  Jesus  brings 
to  men  is  the  Father's  gift  to  them  :  what  Jesus  receives  in  the  hom- 
age and  belief  and  love  of  men  is  the  Father's  gift  to  Him,  The  form 
of  expression  is  remarkable,  '  all  that  which  the  Father  giveth  me.' 
A  passage  closely  akin  to  this  we  find  in  chap.  17,  (which  has  many 
points  of  contact  with  this  chapter),  and  in  close  connection  with  the 
gift  which  (ver.  27)  the  Son  bestows,  the  gift  of  eternal  life.  The  pas- 
sage is  17  :  2  :  'As  thou  has  given  Him  power  over  all  flesh,  in  order 
that  all  that  which  Thou  hast  given  Him,  He  may  give  to  them  eternal 
life.'  In  both  these  verses  the  totality  of  the  Father's  gift  is  presented 
first,  and  then  the  individuals  who  compose  this  gift  and  who  them- 
selves receive  the  gift  which  the  Son  bestows.  The  gift  of  the  Father 
must  not  be  understood  by  us  in  the  sense  of  a  predestinating  decree. 
Both  here  and  in  the  other  passages  of  this  Gospel  where  we  read  of 
the  Father  as  giving  to  the  Son  His  people  (chaps.  6  :  37,  39  ;  10 :  29': 
17:  2,  6,9,  24;  18:  9),  it  is  the  moral  and  spiritual  state  of  the 
heart  that  is  thought  of  under  the  word.  This  state  of  heart  by  which 
they  are  prepared  to  listen  to  the  voice  of  Jesus  is  due  to  God  alone. 
The  truth  expressed  here  by  '  giving'  is  expressed  in  ver.  44  by  the 
'  drawing '  of  the  Father,  and  in  ver.  45  by  '  learning '  and  '  hearing ' 
from  Him.  Such  preparation  of  heart  is  necessary ;  as  Chrysostom 
expresses  it,  faith  in  Jesus  is  '  no  chance  matter,  but  one  that  needs 
an  impulse  from  above,' — from  Him  who  worketh  in  us  both  to  will 
and  to  work  (Phil.  2  :  13).  The  test,  then,  of  this  work  in  the  heart 
is  the  coming  to  Christ.  The  two  words  '  come '  in  this  verse  are 
different :  in  the  first  instance  the  meaning  is  *  shall  reach  me  :  in  the 
second  we  might  almost  render  the  words  '  he  that  is  coming  towards 
me.'  What  is  said  on  the  35th  verse  is  fully  applicable  here,  for  the 
expression  is  the  same.  We  cannot  read  the  works  without  being  re- 
minded of  the  most  touching  of  the  Saviour's  parables  :  the  prodigal 
arose  and  came  toward  s  his  father,  but  when  he  was  yet  a  great  way 
otfhis  father  ran  to  meet  him. 

Ver.  38.  Because  I  have  come  dow^n  from  heaven,  not  to 
do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.  The 
previous  verse  was  full  of  the  power  and  energy  of  love  ;  but  even 
then  Jesus  expresses  no  feeling  or  purpose  of  His  own  as  the  motive 
of  His  acts.  He  will  cast  out  none,  because  such  is  the  Father's  will, 
and  to  do  this  will  He  has  come  down  from  heaven  (comp.  ver.  33). — 
It  may  be  well,  however,  to  observe  that  a  different  preposition  from 
that  in  ver.  33  is  here  used  :  here  '  from,'  for  it  is  the  work  of  Jesus  ; 


6 :  39,  40].  JOHN  VI.  155 

39  will  of  him  that  sent  me.  And  this  is  the  will  of  him 
that  sent  me,  that  of  all  that  which  he  hath  given  me 
I  should  lose  nothing,  but  should  raise  it  up  at  the 

40  last  day.  For  this  is  the  will  of  my  Father,  that 
every  one  that  beholdeth  the  Son  and  believeth  on 
him,  should  have  eternal  life  ;  and  *I  will  raise  him 
up  at  the  last  day. 

1  Or,  that  1  should  raise  him  up. 

there  '  out  of,'  for  it  is  the  heavenliness  of  His  origin  that  is  the  prom- 
inent thonght. 

Ver.  89.  And  this  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that 
all  that  which  he  hath  given  me,  of  it  I  should  lose  noth- 
ing. Here,  as  in  ver.  87,  the  gift  of  the  Father  is  represented  in  its 
totality,  '  all  that  which.'  As  na  part  of  the  precious  gift  to  the  mul- 
titude, the  gift  which  symbolized  Himself,  must  be  left  to  peinsh  (ver. 
12),  so  no  part  of  the  still  more  precious  gift  of  the  Father  may  be 
lost  by  the  Son. — But  should  raise  it  up  at  the  last  day.  Should 
raise  '  it,'  the  whole,  all  that  is  comprehendod  in  the  gift.  The  '  last 
day '  can  denote  only  one  great  period  of  resurrection  for  the  whole 
Church  of  God,— again  a  proof,  as  in  5  :  28,  29,  that  the  teaching  of 
our  Lord  in  this  Gospel  is  not  confined  to  the  spiritual  aspect  of  death 
and  resurrection.  It  is  not  the  gift  of  eternal  life  that  belongs  to  the 
last  day.  Whosoever  receives  the  Son  at  once  receives  in  Him  life 
eternal  (3:  36;  6:  33-35);  but  the  day  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  witnesses  the  completion  of  that  gift  of  eternal  life  which  is  now 
bestowed.  In  the  next  verse  the  present  and  the  future  gifts  are  com- 
bined. 

Ver.  40.  For  this  is  the  will  of  my  Father,  that  every  one 
which  beholdeth  the  Son  and  believeth  in  him  should 
have  eternal  life,  and  that  I  should  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day.  This  verse  is  no  mere  repetition  of  the  last,  but  differs  from  it 
in  two  important  points.  As  in  ver.  37,  we  pass  from  the  thought  of 
the  general  body  of  the  church  to  that  of  the  individual  members  :  in 
the  Father's  will  every  member  is  embraced.  Secondly,  the  bond  of 
connection  with  Jesus  is  viewed  from  its  human  rather  than  from  its 
Divine  side.  In  the  last  verse  Jesus  spoke  of  '  all  that  which  '  the 
Father  had  given  Him  ;  here  He  speaks  of  '  every  one  which  beholdeth 
the  Son  and  believeth  in  Him.'  The  word  '  beholdeth'  is  especially 
noteworthy,  clearly  showing  as  it  does  an  act  of  the  will.  'Seeing'  may 
be  accidental,  may  be  transcient :  he  who  '  beholds  '  is  willing  to  stand 
and  gaze  on  the  object  presented  to  his  view.  The  word  is  full  of  in- 
struction (comp.  8  :  51  ;  12  :  45  ;   14  :  17  ;  17  :  24). 

At  this  point  our  Lord's  discourse  is  interrupted.  Hitherto  He  has  been  addressing 
the  multirude  :  now,  for  the  first  time  in  this  chapter,  we  are  to  read  of  '  the  Jews,' 
i.  e.  (aa  we  have  obberred  in  earlier  chapters)  adherents  of  the  ruling  paity  which  was 


156  JOHN  VI.  [6:41,42. 

41  The  Jews  therefore  murmured  concerning  him, 
because   he  said,  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down 

42  out  of  heaven.  And  they  said,  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the 
son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ? 
how    doth    he    now   say,  I   am  come   down   out   of 

violently  hostile  to  iis.  Whether  thess  Jews  were  amongst  the  multitude  hitherto 
addressed  in  this  discourse  we  cannot  tell.  If  so,  they  had  occupied  no  prominent 
_place,  but  were  lost  in  the  crowd.  But,  as  there  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  paragraph 
which  follows  this  verse  relates  to  the  same  day,  it  is  very  possible  that  the  Jews  were 
not  present  at  the  miracle  or  when  Jesus  spoke  of  the  bread  of  life,  but  were  after- 
wards informed  of  His  words.  This  latter  supposition  becomes  more  probable  as  we 
look  into  the  circumstances.  We  know  that  on  the  day  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude 
the  Passover  was  at  hand  (ver.  4) ;  and  we  cannot  doubt  that,  however  anxious  the 
enemies  of  our  Lord  might  be  to  linger  near  Him,  that  they  might  catch  Him  in  His 
talk,  they  would  scrupulously  observe  the  ritual  of  the  feast.  If  we  turn  to  Mark, 
we  find  two  passages  that  distinctly  speak  of  scribes  who  came  down  from  Jerusalem 
to  Galilee:  one  of  these  passages  (iii.  22 1  belongs  to  a  date  somewhat  earlier  than  that 
of  the  events  related  in  this  chapter,  the  other  (7  :  1)  comes  in  shortlj'  after  the  narra- 
tive of  Christ's  walking  on  the  sea  of  Galilee.  The  Bame  remarks  apply  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  Matthew.  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  these  agents  of  the  hostile  and  in- 
fluential party  in  Jerusalem  hastened  back  to  Galilee  after  the  Passover,  to  resume 
their  machinations  against  the  prophet  whom  they  both  hated  and  feared. 

Ver.  41.  The  Jews  therefore  murmured  concerning  him, 
because  he  said,  I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven.  The  '  murmuring  '  denotes  more  than  that  indistinct  com- 
plaining to  which  we  generally  apply  the  word.  The  frequent  and  in- 
dignant expressions  of  discontent  by  the  Israelites  when  journeying 
in  the  desert  are  expressed  by  the  same  word  in  the  Septuagint,  and 
this  (comp.  1  Cor.  10  :  10)  seems  to  have  fixed  its  meaning  in  the  New 
Testament.  The  Jews  did  not  complain  in  the  presence  of  Jesus,  but 
sought  to  foment  discontent  and  ill-feeling  amongst  those  who  at  the 
time  had  been  willing  heai-ers  of  His  words.  It  is  characteristic  of 
the  spirit  and  motives  of  these  enemies  of  our  Lord  that  their  charge 
against  Him  is  put  in  the  most  captious  form.  As  in  the  very  similar 
case  related  in  chap.  5  :  12,  the  words  of  nobler  meaning  are  as  far  as 
possible  left  out:  nothing  is  said  about  '  the  bread  of  life '  or  'the 
bread  of  God.'  Indeed  the  bread  is  a  mere  link  of  connection,  dropped 
as  soon  as  it  has  served  to  introdu-ce  the  words  joined  with  it,  to 
which  they  can  (as  they  think)  attach  a  charge  of  falsehood.  On  the 
offer  of  life,  eternal  life,  they  will  not  dwell. 

Ver.  42.  And  they  said,  Is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son -of  Jo- 
seph, whose  father  and  mother  we  know  ?  how  doth  he 
now  say,  I  have  come  down  out  of  heaven  ?  At  this 
time,  then,  it  is  clear  that  Jesus  was  generally  regarded  as  Joseph's 
son  :  the  calumnies  which  at  a  later  period  were  current  amongst  the 
Jews  had  not  yet  been  resorted  to.     The  words  of  the  Jews  do  not  im- 


6 :  43-45.]  JOHN  VI.  157 


43  heaven  ?     Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Mur- 

44  mur  not  among  yourselves.  No  man  can  come  to 
me,  except  the  Father  which  sent  me  draw  him  :  and 

45  I  will  raise  him  up  in  the  last  day.  It  is  written  in 
the  prophets,  And  they  shall  all  be  taught  of  God. 
Every  one  that  hath  heard  from  the  Father,  and  hath 

ply  that  Joseph  was  still  living,  as  the  word  rendered  '  know  '  may 
simply  denote  their  being  acquainted  with  a  fact,-— they  knew  that 
Joseph  and  Mary  were  His  parents.  We  need  not  wonder  that  they 
are  ignorant  of  the  miraculous  conception. 

Ver.  43.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Murmur 
not  among  yourselves.  For  such  murmurers  Jesus  has  only  re- 
proof. It  is  very  strange  that  in  our  day  some  writers  on  this  Gospel 
should  have  had  difficulty  in  understanding  why  Jesus  did  not  refute 
the  objection  raised  by  declaring  the  truth  of  the  miraculous  concep- 
tion. Men  who  could  so  mutilate  His  words  as  practically  to  pervert 
their  meaning  would  have  been  brought  no  nearer  to  conviction  by 
such  a  statement,  however  made,  but  would  have  gathered  from  it 
material  for  still  more  malicious  accusation.  At  first  the  reply  of 
Jesus  deals  only  with  the  spirit  His  opponents  manifest. 

Ver.  44.  No  man  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father 
"V7hich  sent  me  shall  have  dra-wn  him.  In  the-e  words  He 
would  tell  them  that  (as  their  unbelief  and  resistance  show)  they 
have  not  that  special  divine  teaching  without  which  they  cannot  un- 
derstand Him.  Hence  He  speaks  not  of  the  '  drawing'  of  God,  but  of 
that  of  the  'Father  who  sent'  Him.  Only  like  can  understand  like. 
It  is  as  the  Father  of  the  Son  that  God  works  in  us  that  spirit  in  which 
the  Son  can  be  received  by  us.  The  'drawing'  is  not  precisely  the 
same  as  the  'giving'  of  ver.  37,  but  describes,  so  to  speak,  the  first 
stage  of  the  'giving;'  he  that  '  hath  been  drawn'  by  the  Father  is  he 
that  is  given  to  the  Son. — And  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day.  As  the  initiative  of  salvation  belongs  to  the  Father,  the  com- 
pletion is  the  work  of  the  Son.  The  Father  draws  and  entrusts  ;  the 
Son  receives,  keeps,  imparts  life,  until  the  glorious  consummation, 
the  final  resurrection.  Between  these  two  extreme  terms  'draw'  and 
'raise  up'  is  included  all  the  development  of  the  spiritual  life  (Godet). 

Ver.  45.  It  is  written  in  the  prophets,  And  they  shall  all 
be  taught  of  God.  Jesus  confirms  His  word  by  a  testimony  from 
the  Old  Testament,  not  now  taken  from  the  Law  (comp.  ver.  31),  but 
from  the  Prophets.  The  use  of  the  plural  'prophets'  has  been 
thought  to  prove  that  the  reference  does  not  belong  to  any  one  pas- 
sage ;  and  we  may  certainly  say,  that  an  inclusive  expression  like 
this  may  have  been  used  designedly,  as  implying  that  there  are  many 
such  promises,  and  that  this  tone  of  promise  is  characteristic  of  the 
book  of  the  Prophets.  Still  the  word  which  introduces  the  quotation, 
'And,'  a  word  quite  needless  for  the  Speaker's  purpose,  shows  con- 


158  JOHN  VI.  .    [6:  46. 

46  learned,  cometh  unto  me.     Not  that  any  man  hath 
seen  the  Father,  save  he  which  is  from  God,  he  hath 

clusively  that  the  quotation  is  direct.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  words  are  taken  from  Isa.  54 :  13,  with  one  or  two  slight  altei'a- 
tions.  They  describe  the  great  and  general  privilege  of  Messianic 
times.  The  retention  of  the  words  'thy  children'  (addressed  to  Je- 
rusalem in  Isa.  54:  lo)  might  have  seemed  to  limit  the  promise, 
which,  belonging  to  the  'latter  days,'  is  really  free  from  all  such 
limitations.  It  has  been  suggested  (by  Godet)  that  the  synagogue 
lesson  for  the  day  (see  ver.  59)  may  have  included  these  very  words 
(comp.  Luke  4:  17-21),  Be  this  as  it  may  (and  there  is  no  improba- 
bility in  the  conjecture),  the  quotation  was  well  known,  and  carries 
out  and  illustrates  the  words  of  ver.  44.  The  truth  of  that  verse  is 
set  in  a  new  light — presented  on  its  human  rather  than  on  its  Divine 
side.  The  'drawing'  is  a  'teaching:'  he  that  hath  been  drawn  by 
the  Father  is  he  that  hath  truly  received  the  teaching  of  the  Father. 
—Every  one  that  hath  heard  from  the  Father,  and  hath 
learned,  cometh  unto  me.  Such  true  reception  of  the  teaching 
is  emphatically  described  in  these  words.  Two  stages  in  human  ex- 
perience, implied  in  the  successful  result  of  teaching,  are  separated 
from  each  other.  All  who  hear  may  also  learn ;  but  many  hear  who 
will  not  heed,  and  therefore  cannot  learn ;  just  as  there  are  many 
who  see  the  Son,  but  will  not  remain  to  'behold  the  Son'  and  to  'be- 
lieve in  Him'  (ver.  40).  Thes^e  varied  expressions  illustrate  one  an- 
other with  wonderful  beauty  and  power.  Not  one  allows  us  to  think 
of  compulsion  or  the  forcing  of  man's  will:  all  with  one  voice  give 
glory  to  the  Father  as  the  source  of  every  impulse  towards  the  light 
and  the  life.  The  variety  of  expressions  used  by  Jesus  in  the  incul- 
cation of  this  truth,  so  characteristic  of  the  present  chapter,  may  well 
remind  us  of  the  vari(  ty  of  the  means  employed  by  the  Father  in  the 
prosecution  of  the  work.  Thus  the  'drawing'  may  present  to  our 
thought  especially  an  inward  influence;  the  'teaching'  may  suggest 
the  application  of  Scripture  truth;  whilst  the  'giving'  brings  into 
view  the  final  act  of  the  Father  when  the  design  of  His  love  has  been 
fulfilled.  But  while  each  term  may  lead  us  to  think  most  of  one 
aspect  of  the  Father's  work,  every  term  really  includes  all  its  aspects, 
and  denotes  the  whole  work. 

A^er.  46.  Not  that  any  one  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he 
■which  is  from  God,  he  hath  seen  the  Father.  The  words 
just  spoken  :  '  he  that  hath  heard  from  the  Father,'  might  be  under- 
stood to  point  to  a  direct  communication :  this,  however,  would  imply 
a  close  relation  to  the  Father,  such  as  is  possessed  by  One  alone  who 
hath  'seen  the  Father.'  His  saying  that  all  who  come  to  Him  have 
first  'heard  from  the:  Father'  might  lead  His  hearers  to  infer  that  the 
descent  out  of  heaven  likewise  implied  nothing  more  than  could  be 
said  of  all.     Such  an  inference  this  verse  is  intended  to  preclude. 


6:  47-50.]  JOHN  VI.  159 

47  seen  the  Father.     Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He 

48  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life.     I  am  the  bread  of 

49  life.     Your  fathers  did  eat  the  manna  in  the  wilder- 

50  ness,  and  they  died.     This  is  the  bread  which  cometh 

If  they  would  really  be  'taught'  of  the  father,  it  can  only  be  through 
Him. 

Ver.  47.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He  that  believeth 
hath  eternal  life.  In  the  preceding  verses  Jesus  has  rebuked  the 
murmuring  of  the  Jews.  They  had  not  opened  their  hearts  to  the 
Father's  teaching,  or  their  difficulty  would  have  disappeared.  He 
now  returns  to  the  truths  out  of  which  His  foes  had  drawn  their  in- 
dictment against  His  truthfulness.  First,  however,  He  brings  into 
relief  those  sayings  which  they  had  passed  over  entirely.  The  solemn 
formula:  '  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,'  to  be  followed  by  a  higher 
at  ver.  53,  at  once  marks  the  transition,  and  shows  the  importance  of 
the  truth  declared.  In  speaking  to  the  multitude  (ver.  26),  His  first 
words  had  related  to  eternal  life,  and  to  the  paramount  necessity  of 
faith  (ver.  29).  So  here  also;  but  the  assertion  is  made  in  (he  brief- 
est possible  form.  Even  the  object  of  the  faith  is  left  unexpressed, 
that  the  thought  may  entirely  rest  on  the  state  of  faith  itself:  the  be- 
liever in  the  very  act  and  condition  of  faith  has  eternal  life.  It  is  not 
often  that  Jesus  speaks  thus,  omitting  the  words  'in  me'  or  'in  the 
Son ;'  but  there  could  be  no  real  ambiguity  in  the  present  instance, 
and  He  desirf  s  to  express  in  the  most  forcible  manner  the  state  of 
mind  which  formed  the  strongest  possible  contrast  to  that  of  the  Jews. 

Ver.  48.  I  am  the  bread  of  life.  Having  prepared  the  way  by 
the  declaration  of  the  necessity  of  faith,  He  reaffirms  what  (in  ver.  35) 
He  had  said  of  Himself.  He  is  the  bread  which  contains  life  in  itself, 
and  which  therefore  can  give  and  does  give  life  to  all  who  receive  and 
assimilate  it. — It  is  interesting  to  observe,  at  a  point  where  the  dis- 
course is  really  higher  than  it  was  before,  a  shorteniny  of  the  formula 
employed,  similar  to  that  already  met  by  us  in  1 :  29  and  36  (see  note 
on  1:  35,  36). 

Ver.  49.  Your  fathers  did  eat  the  manna  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  died.  No  other  bread  has  given  life  eternal.  Even  the 
manna,  the  bread  given  out  of  heaven,  did  not  bestow  life  on  their 
fathers,  who  (as  the  people  themselves  had  said)  ate  the  manna  in 
the  wilderness.  It  seems  very  probable  that  the  addition  'in  the  wil- 
derness' is  more  than  a  mere  repetition  of  the  words  of  ver.  81.  It 
recalls  Num.  14:  35;  Ps.  95:  8-11,  and  other  passages,  in  which  'the 
wilderness'  is  specially  mentioned  as  the  scene  of  disobedience  and  of 
death ;  and  thus  the  fathers,  who  (Deut.  1 :  32)  '  did  not  believe  the 
Lord '  and  died,  are  contrasted  with  the  believer  who  '  hath  eternal 
life'  (ver.  47). 

Ver.  50.  This  is  the  bread  vrhich  cometh  down  out  of 
heaven,  that  any  one  may  eat  thereof,  and  not  die.     The 


160  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  51. 

doAvn  out  of  heaven,  that  a  man  may  eat  thereof,  and 
51  not  die.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down 
out  of  heaven :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall 
live  forever :  yea  and  the  bread  which  I  will  give  is 
my  flesh,  for  the  life  of  the  world. 

'bread  that  cometh  down  out  of  heaven '  (repeated  from  ver.  33)  is  of 
such  a  nature,  and  has  such  an  object,  that  one  may  cat  of  it  and  not 
die.  We  are  not  to  press  too  much  our  Lord's  use  of  *  one'  or  '  any 
one '  in  this  verse  •,  but  we  may  at  least  say  that  his  studious  avoid- 
ance of  every  word  of  limitation  poiuts  once  more  to  the  unbounded 
oflFer  of  life,  the  offer  to  'the  world'  (ver.  33).  When  verses  49  and 
50  are  compared,  a  difficulty  presents  itself.  It  may  be  said  that  the 
antithesis  is  not  complete,  for  is  not  death  used  in  two  different  senses? 
The  fathers  died  in  the  wilderness :  he  that  eateth  of  the  true  bread 
shall  not  die.  There  is  exactly  the  same  two-fold  use  of  the  word  in 
chap.  11 :  26  (see  the  note  on  that  verse).  It  is  sufficient  here  to  say 
that  in  neither  verse  is  the  meaning  as  simple  as  the  objection  sup- 
poses. In  ver.  49  we  must  certainly  recognize  a  partial  reference 
to  death  as  a  punishment  of  sin,  and  by  consequence  to  that  moral 
death  which  even  in  this  world  must  ever  accompany  sin.  In  ver.  50 
again  physical  death  may  seem  to  be  excluded ;  but  we  shall  see  that 
John  elsewhere  regards  the  believer  as  freed  (in  a  certain  sense)  even 
from  this,  so  entirely  has  death  for  him  changed  its  character ;  so 
complete  is  the  deliverance  granted  by  his  Lord. 

Ver.  51.  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  dcw^n  out  of 
heaven.  Once  more  Jesus  declares  that  the  bread  of  which  He  has 
spoken  is  Himself;  but  the  assertion  is  expressed  in  words  that  differ 
significantly  from  those  before  employed.  For  'the  bread  of  life'  He 
says  now  '  the  living  bread;'  for  '  cometh  down,'  an  expression  which 
might  seem  a  mere  figure  denoting  heavenly  origin,  He  says  '  came 
down,'  speaking  of  an  actual  historical  descent  out  of  heaven.  The 
former  change  especially  is  impoi'tant.  He  has  been  speaking  of  the 
bread  as  given,  but  is  about  to  declare  Himself  to  be  the  Giver:  there- 
fore He  says  that  He  is  the  living  bread,  that  can  give  itself,  and  with 
itself  its  inherent  life.  There  was  nothing  in  the  '  bread  of  life^  that 
would  necessarily  suggest  more  than  means  and  instrument.  If  the 
tree  of  life  in  Pai-adise  bestowed  immortality  on  man,  it  was  but  by 
instrumental  efficacy.  '  The  living  bread '  is  a  thought  absolutely 
unique,  and  the  words  compel  the  minds  of  the  hearers  to  rest  on  tJie 
person  of  the  Speaker,  who  in  the  possession  of  this  life,  and  not  as 
the  precious  but  lifeless  manna,  descended  out  of  heaven. — If  any 
one  shall  have  eaten  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever. 
These  words  partly  repeat  and  partly  extend  those  of  the  preceding 
vei'se.  Thei-e  the  nature  and  object  of  the  bread  are  given  ;  here  the 
assurance  that  every  one  who  makes  trial  of  the  promise  shall  cer- 
tainly find  it  fulfilled  to  him  in  the  gift  of  a  life  that  lasts  forever. — 


6 :  52-55.]  JOHN  VI.  161 

52  The  Jews  therefore  strove  oue  with  another,  say- 
mg,   How  can   this  man  give   us  his  flesh  to  eat? 

53  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man 
and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves. 

54  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood  hath 
eternal  life;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 

55  For  my  flesh  is  ^  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  ^  drink 

1  Gr.  true  meat.  ^  Gr.  true  drink. 

And  moreover  the  bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  for 
the  life  of  the  world.  The  personal  significance  of  the  preceding 
•words  is  now  made  even  more  direct,  and  the  meaning  intended  can- 
not probably  be  mistaken.  He  gives ;  the  bread  He  gives  is  His 
flesh  ;  the  gift  is  for  the  life  of  the  world.  The  questions  which  these 
words  have  raised  will  be  best  considered  in  connection  with  our 
Lord's  own  comment  in  the  following  verses. 

Ver.  52.  The  Jews  therefore  strove  among  themselves, 
saying,  How  can  this  man  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?  As  be- 
fore, the  Jews  take  hold  of  those  words  whiph  are  most  susceptible  of 
a  merely  material  sense.  Every  one  that  points  to  a  spiritual  mean- 
ing they  ignore;  but  in  doing  so,  they  themselves  give  evidence  of 
the  clearness  with  which  our  Lord  had  now  shown  that  His  intention 
had  been  to  fix  the  whole  thought  of  His  hearers  on  Himself,  and  not 
on  His  gifts.  The  contention  of  the  Jews  became  violent  as  they 
talked  of  the  words  of  Jesus:  the  Evangelist's  expression,  literally 
taken,  points  to  'fighting'  rather  than  strife  (comp.  Acts  7:  26;  2 
Tim.  2:  24;  Jas.  4:  2). 

Vers.  53,  54,  55.  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you.  Except  ye  have  eaten  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  man,  and  drunk  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in 
yourselves.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my 
blood,  hath  eternal  life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last 
day.  For  my  flesh  is  food  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink 
indeed.  As  to  the  general  meaning  of  this  important  passage,  there 
can  be  little  or  no  doubt.  There  are  some  new  expressions,  but  on 
the  whole  the  imagery  agrees  with  that  employed  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  chapter,  and  the  blessings  offered  by  Jesus  are  described  again 
in  identical  language.  Here,  as  before,  life,  eternal  life,  is  promised  ; 
again  '  eating'  is  the  figure  which  describes  the  mode  of  receiving  life ; 
as  in  vers.  35,  48  and  51,  Jesus  identifies  Himself  with  that  which 
when  eaten  gives  life;  and,  as  in  ver.  44  (comp.  vers.  39  and  40),  He 
promises  that  He  will  raise  up  at  the  last  day  every  one  who  has  thus 
received  eternal  life  The  agreement  then  between  these  verses  and 
the  earlier  part  of  the  discourse  is  so  marked  that  there  can  be  no 
change  in  the  general  sense :  all  the  expressions  in  previous  verses  in 
11 


162  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  53-55. 

which  figure  is  wholly  or  partially  set  aside  may  be  brought  in  here 
also  to  elucidate  the  meaning.  Our  Lord  therefore  still  teaches  in 
regard  to  all  who  come  to  Him,  who  believe  in  Him,  who  are  inti- 
mately joined  to  Him  in  the  union  of  faith,  and,  receiving  all  from 
Him,  may  be  said  to  appropriate  to  themselves  Himself,  and  to  feed 
on  Him — that  these,  and  these  alone,  have  eternal  life.  There  is  no- 
thing here  that  alters  this  foundation  truth.  The  phraseology  of  these 
verses  (and  ver.  51)  is  new  in  the  following  respects:  (1)  Instead  of  the 
one  metaphor  of  eating  we  have  two,  'eating'  and  'drinking;  (2) 
The  figure  of  bread  is  dropped,  giving  place  to  '  flesh,'  '  the  flesh  of 
the  Son  of  man,'  which  flesh  is  given  by  Him  for  the  life  of  the  world. 
(3)  For  the  first  time  Je^us  makes  mention  of  His  '  blood,' — the  drink- 
ing of  this  blood  gives  life.  The  introduction  of  the  second  metaphor, 
'drinking,'  at  once  recalls  ver.  35,  where  'thirst'  is  as  suddenly 
brought  in.  As  in  that  verse,  so  here,  one  purpose  answered  is  the 
more  complete  realization  of  a  feast :  the  Paschal  meal  is  always 
pi-esent  in  the  symbols  of  this  chapter.  Whether  this  is  to  be  taken 
as  the  only  purpose  will  depend  on  the  answer  given  to  other  ques- 
tions which  must  be  asked.  Does  Jesus,  in  speaking  of  His  flesh 
given  for  the  life  of  the  world,  expressly  refer  to  His  death.  His  aton- 
ing death  ?  Is  it  in  order  to  point  more  clearly  to  that  truth  that  He 
here  brings  in  the  mention  of  His  blood?  Are  we  to  understand  that 
there  is  a  strict  and  vefiV difference  between  the  things  signified  by  eat- 
ing His  flesh  and  drinking  His  blood  ?  The  last  question  may  easily 
be  answered  :  there  is  certainly  no  such  difference.  In  ver.  35  there 
is  a  very  beautiful  and  rapid  change  of  aspect,  but  no  substantial 
change  of  thought :  coming  to  Christ  is  believing  in  Him,  and  the  re- 
sult is  the  satisfaction  of  every  want,  whether  represented  as  hunger 
or  as  thirst.  "When  the  flesh  is  first  mentioned  (ver.  51)  it  stands 
alone,  as  the  Saviour's  gift  for  the  life  of  the  world  ;  and  laelow  (ver. 
57)  '  eating '  alone  is  spoken  of,  yet  the  result  is  life.  As  a  rule,  in- 
deed, flesh  is  contrasted  with  blood  in  biblical  language,  and  the  two  are 
joined  together  to  express  the  physical  being  of  man ;  but  it  is  not 
uncommon  to  find  flesh  used  by  itself  in  this  sense.  Thus  in  the  first 
chapter  of  this  Gospel  we  read  that  '  the  Word  was  made  flesh,' 
whereas  in  Heb.  2  :  14  we  are  taught  that  the  Son  took  part  in  flesh 
and  blood.  It  is  therefore  quite  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of 
Scripture  that  the  same  idea  should  be  expressed  now  by  the  one  term 
and  now  by  the  two  combined ;  and  the  context  (as  we  have  seen) 
shows  that  this  is  the  case  here.  The  two  expressions  of  these  verses 
are  thus  substantially  equivalent  to  the  one  expression  of  ver.  57.  But 
it  does  not  follow  from  this  that  our  Lord  had  no  special  motive  for 
thus  varying  His  language.  The  cardinal  thought  is  most  simply  ex- 
pressed in  ver.  57,  '  he  that  eateth  me ;'  and  we  may  well  believe  that 
He  would  have  so  spoken  in  these  verses  also  had  He  not  intended  to 
suggest  special  thoughts  by  the  use  of  other  words.  In  asking  now 
what  these  special  thoughts  are,  it  is  scarcely  possible  for  us,  in  the 
light  of  events  that  followed,  to  dissociate  the  last  clause  of  ver.  51 


6:  53-65.]  JOHN  VI.  163 

from  the  thought  of  death,  or  the  mention  of  '  the  blood '  of  the  Son 
of  man  from  the  thought  of  the  blood  shed  upon  the  cross.  The  words, 
indeed,  would  not  at  that  time  suggest  such  thoughts :  they  were 
rather  a  secret  prophecy,  like  the  mysterious  sayings  of  chap.  2  :  19 
('  Destroy  this  Temple')  and  chap.  3  :  14  (♦  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
man  be  lifted  up'),  and  that  saying  so  often  repeated  in  the  earlier 
Gospels,  the  command  to  '  take  up  '  and  to  '  bear'  '  the  cross.'  But 
this  Gospel  shows  most  plainly  that  the  end  was  ever  present  to  Jesus 
from  the  very  beginning ;  and  many  of  His  words  can  only  receive 
their  proper  interpretation  by  the  application  of  this  principle.  There 
is  another  consideration  which  removes  all  doubt  in  this  place,  if  the 
general  view  which  has  been  taken  of  the  chapter  is  correct.  The 
figurative  acts  and  language  have  been  suggested  by  the  Paschal  meal 
which  has  just  been  (or  about  to  be)  celebrated  in  Jerusalem.  The  later 
chapters  of  the  Gospel  set  forth  Jesus  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  Passover, 
Jesus  on  the  cross  as  the  antitype  and  reality  of  the  Paschal  meal. 
This  chapter  in  pointing  to  the  type  points  continually  to  the  fulfil- 
ment ;  but  the  Paschal  lamb  died,  and  the  death  of  Jesus  must  there- 
fore be  regarded  as  part  of  the  thought  before  us.  Nor  would  it  be 
safe  to  deny  that  mention  of  the  blood  here  may  even  be  connected,  as 
some  have  supposed,  with  the  command  that  the  blood  of  the  Paschal 
lamb  should  be  sprinkled  on  the  dwellings  of  the  Israelites.  So  many 
are  the  links  between  symbol  and  reality  which  the  Evangelist  appre- 
hends both  in  his  own  teaching  and  in  the  discourses  received  by  him, 
that  it  is  less  hazardous  to  admit  than  to  deny  the  possibility  of  such  a 
connection.  But  even  then  the  thought  of  blood  shed  upon  the  cross 
must  not  be  kept  separate  and  distinct  from  all  else  that  Jesus  was  and 
did.  The  central  thought  of  the  chapter  is  undoubtedly  that  of  a  meal, 
a  feast,  an  experimental  reception  of  a  living  Christ  which  is  symbolized 
by  '  eating '  and  'drinking ;'  and  to  that  the  whole  interpretation  must  be 
subordinated.  It  cannot  therefore  be  Jesus  in  His  death,  looked  at  as  a 
distinct  and  separate  act,  that  is  before  us  in  the  mention  of  the  blood. 
It  must  still  be  Jesus  in  the  whole  of  His  manifestation  of  Himself, 
living,  dying,  glorified ;  so  that,  if  we  may  so  speak,  the  death  is  to 
be  viewed  only  as  a  pervading  element  of  the  life,  only  as  one  of  the 
characteristics  of  that  Christ  who,  not  as  divided  but  in  all  the  com- 
bined elements  of  His  humiliation  and  His  glory,  is  from  first  to  last 
the  object  of  our  faith  and  the  satisfaction  of  our  need.  The  main 
point,  in  short,  to  be  kept  in  view  is  this,  that  we  are  here  dealing 
with  the  actual  nourishment,  with  the  sustenance,  with  the  life  of  the 
soul ;  with  the  believer,  not  as  having  only  certain  relations  altered 
in  which  he  stands  to  God,  but  as  in  fellowship  and  communion  of  spirit 
with  Him  in  whom  he  believes.  To  maintain  by  faith  that  fellowship 
with  Jesus  in  all  that  He  was,  is  to  eat  His  flesh  and  to  drink  His  blood. 
It  may  be  accepted  as  an  additional  proof  of  the  correctness  of  what 
has  been  said,  if  we  observe  that  the  very  same  blessings  now  con- 
nected with  eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of  Jesus  have  been 
already  connected  with  'coming  to  Him,'  with  'believing  in  Him,'  and 


164  JOHN  VI.  [6:  53-55. 

"with  'beholding  Him.'  Thus  for  the  first  of  these,  comp.  vers.  35  and 
55  ;  for  the  second,  vers.  47  and  54  ;  for  the  third,  vers.  40  and  54. 
It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  spiritual  appropriation  of  the  life  and 
death  of  Jesus  is  described  under  all  the  dilierent  figures  of  this  pas- 
sage. All  tell  us  of  communion,  of  fellowship,  of  a  feast, — of  the  Lamb 
of  God  not  only  as  the  Paschal  sacrifice,  but  as  the  Paschal  feast.  '1  he 
question  now  considered  leads  at  once  to  another.  What  is  the  relation 
of  these  verses  and  this  whole  discourse  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per? Many  have  held  that  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrament  (not  yet  in- 
stituted, but  present  to  the  Redeemer's  mind)  is  the  very  substance  of 
this  chapter ;  whilst  others  have  denied  that  there  is  any  connection 
whatever  between  the  two.  We  can  adopt  neither  of  these  extreme 
views.  On  the  one  hand,  the  words  of  Jesus  in  this  discourse  can  be- 
long to  no  rite  or  ordinance,  however  exalted  and  however  precious  to 
His  people.  The  act  of  which  He  speaks  is  continuous,  not  occasional, 
— spiritual,  not  external ;  every  term  that  He  employs  is  a  symbol  of 
trust  in  Him.  But  on  the  other  hand,  if  alike  in  this  chapter  and  in  the 
records  of  the  Last  Supf  er  the  Paschal  meal  is  presented  to  our 
thought,  and  if  John  specially  connects  this  feast  with  the  death  of 
Christ,  whilst  all  the  other  Evangelists  bring  into  relief  the  relation  of 
the  Last  Supper  to  the  same  death,  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  the  sac- 
rament is  altogether  alien  to  this  discourse.  The  relation  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  to  the  teaching  of  this  chapter  is  very  nearly  the  same  as  the 
relation  of  Christian  baptism  to  our  Lord's  discourse  to  Nicodemus 
(see  note  on  chap.  3:  5].  In  neither  case  is  the  sacrament  as  such 
brought  before  us;  in  both  we  must  certainly  recognise  the  presence 
of  its  fundamental  idea.  This  discourse  is  occupied  with  that  lasting, 
continuous  act  of  which  afterwards  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per was  made  a  symbol ;  and  the  sacrament  is  still  a  symbol  of  the 
unchanging  truth  so  fully  set  forth  in  this  discourse, — the  believer's 
union  with  his  Lord,  his  complete  dependence  upon  Him  for  life,  his 
continued  appropriation  by  faith  of  His  very  self,  his  feeding  on  Him, 
living  on  Him,  his  experience  that  Jesus  in  giving  Himself  satisfies 
every  want  of  the  soul.  There  is  not  much  in  the  particular  expres- 
sions of  these  three  verses  that  calls  for  further  remark.  It  will  be 
observed  that  there  are  two  links  connecting  them  with  our  Lord's 
first  address  to  the  multitude  (ver.  26) :  He  again  speaks  of  the  '  Son 
of  man,'  and  the  words  '  food  indeed '  (literally  '  true  eating ' )  at  once 
recall  ♦  the  eating  that  abideth.'  One  expression  in  ver.  53  is  very 
forcible,  *  Ye  have  not  life  in  yourselves,'  implying  as  it  does,  that  they 
who  have  so  eaten  and  drunk  have  life  in  themselves.  These  are 
words  which  our  Lord  could  not  use  without  intending  a  special  em- 
phasis (comp.  chap.  5:  26 1 :  so  complete  is  the  believer's  appro- 
priation of  the  Son,  who  hath  life  in  Himself,  that  the  same  exalted 
language  may  be  used  of  the  believer  also,  whilst  he  abides  in  fellow- 
ship with  his  Lord.  Then  he  has  life  in  himself,  but  not  of  himself. 
This  fellowship  is  the  substance  of  the  next  verse. 


6:  56-60.]  JOHN  VI.  165 

56  indeed.     He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  driaketh   ray 

57  blood  abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  As  the  living 
Father  sent  me,  and  1  live  because  of  the  Father ;  so 
he  that  eateth  me,  he  also  shall  live  because  of  me. 

58  This  is  the  bread  which  came  down  out  of  heaven  : 
not  as  the  fathers  did  eat,  and  died :    he  that  eateth 

59  this  bread  shall  live  for  ever.  These  things  said  he 
in  Hhe  synagogue,  as  he  taught  in  Capernaum. 

60  Many  therefore  of  his  disciples,  when   they  heard 

IQr,  a  synagogue. 

Ver.  5G.  He  that  eateth  my  flesh  and  drinketh  my  blood 
abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him.  The  fellowship  consists  in  this, 
that  the  believer  abides  in  the  life,  and  that  He  who  is  the  Life  abides 
in  the  believer.  Not  that  here  it  is  not  'hath  eaten  ;'  the  'abiding' 
is  dependent  on  the  continuance- of  the  appropriating  act. 

Ver.  57.  As  the  living  Father  sent  me,  and  I  live  because 
of  the  Father ;  so  he  that  eateth  me,  he  also  shall  live  be- 
cause of  me.  He  that  sent  the  Son  into  the  world  is  the  living 
Father, — the  Being  who  is  eternally  and  absolutely  the  Living  One.  The 
Son  lives  because  the  Father  lives.  This  reception  of  life  (see  chap. 
5  :  2<j)  is  (he  characteristic  of  the  Son.  So,  with  a  relation  to  the  So^ 
similar  to  the  Son's  relation  to  the  Father,  the  believer  who  receives 
and  appropriates  the  Son  lives  because  the  Son,  who  is  Life,  abides  in 
him.  This  is  the  climax  of  the  whole  discourse  :  for  even  more  ex- 
alted language  expressive  of  the  same  truth,  that  the  relation  between 
Jesus  and  His  own  has  its  pattern  in  the  relation  between  the  Father 
&nd  the  Son,  see  chap.  17:  -1,  23. 

Ver.  58.  This  is  that  bread  which  came  down  out  of 
heaven.  Here  .Jesus  returns  to  the  first  theme.  Since  He  has  now 
set  forth  all  that  the  true  bread  gives,  the  contrast  with  the  manna  is 
complete.  '  This' — of  this  nature,  such  as  1  have  described  it  to  you 
— '  is  the  bread  that  c'Kme  down  out  of  heaven.'  These  last  words  il- 
lustrate the  first  clause  of  ver.  57,  '  the  living  Father  sent  me.'  —  Not 
as  your  fathers  did  eat  and  died :  he  that  eateth  this 
bread  shall  live  for  ever.  The  rest  of  the  verse  is  in  the  main  a 
forcible  repetition  of  vers.  49,  50. 

Ver,  59.  These  things  said  he,  as  he  was  teaching  in  a 
synagogue  in  Capernaum.  These  words  not  only  give  informa- 
tion as  to  the  place  in  which  the  discourse  (probably  vers.  41-58;  see 
note  on  ver.  40j  was  delivered,  but  also  show  the  boldness  with  which 
Jesus  declared  truths  so  new  and  so  surprising  to  His  hearers.  Ke 
spoke  thus  in  public  teaching  (comp.  chap.  18:  20),  and  that  too  in 
the  presence  of  His  powerful  enemies,  and  in  the  place  where  their 
influence  was  greatest. 

Ver.  60.     Many    therefore    of  his    disciples    when     they 


166  JOHN  VI.  [6 :  61-63. 

this,  said,  This  is  a  hard   saying:    who  can  hear  4t? 

61  But  Jesus  knowing  in  himself  that  his  disciples  mur- 
mured  at   this,  said  unto  them,  Doth  this  cause  you 

62  to  stumble  ?    ^Vhat  then  if  ye  should  behold  the  Son 

63  of  man  ascending  where  he  was  before  ?  It  is  the 
spirit  that  quickeneth ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing : 
the  words  that   I  have   spoken  unto   you  are  spirit, 

*  Or,  him. 

heard  this  said,  This  is    a    hard    saying ;    who  can  hear 

him  ?  The  word  'disciples'  is  here  used  in  a  wide  sense,  including 
many  more  than  the  Twelve,  and  many  who  had  never  risen  to  a  high 
and  pure  faith.  The  '  saying '  can  only  be  that  of  the  preceding 
verses  (53-57),  and  its  hardness  consisted  in  the  fact  that  it  pointed 
out  one  only  way  to  life, — eating  the  flesh  and  drinking  the  blood  of 
the  Son  of  man.  These  words  the  disciples  did  not  spiritually  com- 
prehend, and  therefore  they  were  repelled  by  them. 

Ver.  61.  But  Jesus  knowing  in  himself  that  his  disciples 
murmured  concerning  this,  said  unto  them,  Doth  this 
make  you  to  stumble  ?  He  knew  their  thoughts,  and  be- 
cause they  are  disciples,  not  Jews  bent  on  opposing  Him,  He  seeks  to 
help  them, 

Ver.  02.  What  then  if  ye  behold  the  Son  of  man  ascend- 
ing where  he  was  before  ?  The  meaning  of  this  ascent  is  surely 
clear  in  itself;  but  if  it  were  not,  the  mention  of  a  past  descent  (vers. 
41,  51,  58)  would  remove  all  doubt.  Our  Lord  certainly  refers  to  His 
ascension  into  heaven.  He  would  say  :  'Is  the  word  that  speaks  of 
the  descent  from  heaven,  of  the  living  bread  that  alone  can  give  life,  of 
the  Son's  descent  from  heaven  to  give  His  flesh  and  His  blood  that  the 
world  may  eat  and  drink  and  live,  a  stumbling-block  to  you?  If,  when 
I  am  here  before  you,  you  cannot  understand  what  is  meant  by  eating 
my  flesh  and  drinking  my  blood, — cannot  apprehend  the  spiritual 
meaning  Avhich  such  words  must  bear, — how  mi/ch  more  will  you,  in 
this  your  carnal  apprehension  of  what  I  say,  be  made  to  stumble  if 
you  should  see  me  ascending  where  I  was  before,  to  be  no  longer  upon 
earth  at  all  I'  As  the  necessity  of  eating  His  flesh  must  continue, 
what  will  they  think  then?  Then  the  sense  they  have  put  upon  His 
words  will  indeed  wholly  break  down  :  then  at  last  they  may  come  to 
see  that  the  words  can  only  be  spiritually  understood. 

Ver.  63.  It  is  the  spirit  that  maketh  to  live ;  the  flesh 
profiteth  nothing.  Jesus  has  spoken  of 'giving  life,'  of  the  '  eating 
of  His  flesh,'  as  the  means  of  gaining  eternal  life.  In  all  this  He  has 
not  the  flesh  but  the  spirit  in  view, — not  the  material  reception  of  the 
flesh  by  the  flesh,  but  the  appropriation  of  His  spirit  by  the  spirit  of 
man.  Such  spiritual  union  of  the  believer  with  Him  alone  '  maketh 
to  live  :'  the  flesh  in  itself  is  profitless  for  such  an  end. — The  words 


6:  64-66.]  JOHN  VI.  167 

64  and  are  life.  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  believe 
not.  For  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who  they 
were  that  believed  not,  and  who  it  was  that  should 

65  betray  him.  And  he  said,  For  this  cause  have  T  said 
unto  you,  that  no  man  can  come  unto  me,  except  it  be 
given  unto  him  of  the  Father. 

66  Upon  this  many  of  his  disciples  went  back,  and 

that  I  have  spoken  unto  you,  they  are  spirit,  and  they  are 
life.  The  word  '  I '  is  emphatic,  as  it  repeatedly  has  been  in  this  dis- 
course. The  eniphasis  which  Jesus  here  and  elsewhere  lays  upon  His 
sayings  is  very  remarkable.  He  is  the  Word,  the  expression  of  the 
Father's  nature  and  will ;  His  sayings  are  to  man  the  expression  of 
Himself.  The  words  or  sayings  just  spoken  to  these  disciples  are 
spirit  and  are  life.  This  is  their  essential  nature.  They  may  be  car- 
nalised,  wrongly  understood,  wilfully  perverted  ;  but  wherever  they 
find  an  entrance  they  manifest  their  true  nature.  They  bring  into  the 
receptive  heart  not  the  flesh  but  the  spirit  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  thus 
the  man,  and  in  the  true  sense  eating  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  has 
life.  His  words  received  by  faith  bring  Himself.  Thus  He  can  in 
two  verses  almost  consecutive  (chap.  15  :  4,  7)  say,  '  abide  in  me,  and 
I  in  you,'  and  '  If  ye  abide  in  me,  and  my  words  abide  in  you.' 

Ver.  64.  But  there  are  some  of  you  that  believe  not. 
Even  of  these  who  had  heard  the  last  words,  so  mercifully  spoken  for 
the  removal  of  their  difficulties,  there  were  some  who  continued  in 
unbelief.— For  Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning  who  they 
were  that  believed  not,  and  w^ho  it  was  that  w^ould  be- 
tray him.  Another  remarkable  declaration  by  the  Evangelist  of  the 
Saviour's  penetrating  discernment  of  all  hearts  (compare  chap.  2  :  24, 
25),  and  of  His  knowledge  from  the  very  beginning  what  would  be 
the  end  of  His  earthly  course.  The  words  seem  to  imply  that  the 
germ  of  the  traitor-spirit  was  already  in  the  heart  of  Judas,  who,  like 
many  others,  loved  rather  the  glory  and  honor  which  Jesus  set  aside 
(vers.  14,  15)  than  the  spirit  and  the  life  of  His  words. 

Ver.  65.  And  he  said.  For  this  cause  have  I  said  unto 
you,  that  no  one  can  come  unto  me,  except  it  have  been 
given  unto  him  of  the  Father.  They  had  seemed  genuine  dis- 
ciples ;  but  His  words  had  been  to  them  a  stumbling  block,  and  had 
not  brought  life.  They  had  not  really  come  to  Him :  they  had  not 
received  from  the  Father  the  gift  of  'coming  unto'  Jesus,  but  the 
failure  had  been  by  their  own  fault.  Having  resisted  the  drawing  of 
the  Father,  they  had  lacked  the  due  preparation  of  heart  for  receiving 
the  words  of  Jesus  (see  the  notes  on  vers.  37  and  44). 

Ver.  66.  Upon  this  many  of  his  disciples  w^ent  back,  and 
w^alked  no  longer  "with  him.  Another  sad  reflection,  as  in  ver. 
64 :  the  Evangelist  cannot  but  record  the  repelling  influence  which 
light  exerted  on  those  who  were  not  of  the  light.     These  disciples 


168  JOHN  VI.  [G:  67-70. 

67  walked  no  more  with  him.     Jesus  said  therefore  unto 

68  the  twelve,  Would  ye  also  go  away?     Simon  Peter 
answered   him,   Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go?  thou 

69  ^hast  the  words  of  eternal  life.     And  we  have  be- 
lieved and  know  that  thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God. 

70  Jesus  answered  them.  Did  not  1  choose  you  the  twelve, 

1  Or,  hast  words. 

seemed  to  have  left  all  that  they  might  be  followers  of  Christ ;  but 
now  they  return  to  the  homes  and  the  occupations  they  had  forsaken. 
(The  usual  rendering  'walked  no  more'  is  in  itself  perfectly  correct, 
but  may  be  possibly  understood  in  the  sense  of  'never  more,'  a  sense 
certainly  not  designed. ) 

Ver.  67.  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  the  twelve,  "Would  ye 
also  go?  In  contrast  with  the  desertion  of  many  is  the  strengthened 
faith  of  those  who,  being  of  the  light,  ai-e  attracted  by  the  light.  The 
'Twelve'  are  here  mentioned  by  John  for  the  tirst  time. 

Vers.  68,  69.  Simon  Peter  answered  him.  In  accordance 
with  the  earlier  records  Peter  stands  forth  as  the  spokesman  of  the 
Twelve,  and  in  answer  to  the  question  of  Jesus  makes  a  confession  of 
their  faith. — Lord,  to  "whom  shall  we  go  aw^ay?  thou  hast 
w^ords  of  eternal  life.  (Ver.  69).  And  w^e  have  believed,  and 
we  knoTv  that  thou  art  the  Holy  One  of  God.  The  confession 
consists  of  three  parts:  (1)  '  Thou  hast  words  of  eternal  life '  (see  ver. 
63);  (2)  'And  we  have  believed'  (in  contrast  with  ver.  64,  'there 
are  of  you  some  that  believe  not') ;  (3)  'And  we  know,'  etc.  These 
disciples  have  answered  the  revelation  of  Jesus  by  the  faith  which  it 
demands;  and  now  they  'know'  with  the  practical  knowledge  of  ex- 
perience that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God.  The  expression  which  Peter 
uses  is  '  the  Holy  One  of  God.'  A  similar  phrase  occurs  in  Ps.  106: 
16  in  regard  to  Aaron,  who  is  called  '  the  holy  one  of  Jehovah.'  In 
the  case  of  the  human  priest  and  in  that  of  his  antitype,  our  Lord, 
the  general  meaning  is  the  same — the  consecrated  one  of  God,  or,  in 
other  woi'ds.  He  whom  the  Father  sealed.  He  whom  God  has  sent. 
The  meaning  of  the  word  used  here,  '  holy,'  must  receive  special  con- 
sideration in  other  passages  :  see  the  notes  on  10  :  36  ;  17:  17.  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  say,  that  the  confession  of  Peter  does  not  seem  to 
be  the  same  as  that  related  in  Matt.  16. 

Ver.  70.  Jesus  answered  them,  Did  not  I  choose  you  the 
twelve  ?  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil.  Alas !  even  in  this  small 
circle  there  is  an  element  that  the  light  attracts  not,  but  repels.  In 
good  faith  Peter  had  spoken  of  all  his  brethren,  when  he  said  :  '  we 
have  believed.'  He  knew  not,  and  probably  Judas  himself  knew  not, 
to  whom  Jesus  referred.  The  germ  of  the  future  crime,  and  that 
alone,  as  yet  existed.  But  from  the  beginning  Jesus  knew  all. 
Amongst  the  disciples  He  knew  who  would  desert  Him  :  in  this  inner 


6;  71—7:  1.]  JOHN  VI— VII.  169 

V  71  and  one  of  you  is  a  devil  ?  Now  he  spake  of  Judas 
the  son  of  Simon  Iscariot,  for  he  it  was  that  should 
betray  him,  being  one  of  the  twelve. 

Chapter  7:  1-13. 

Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles. 

1      And  after  these  things  Jesus  walked  in  Galilee: 
for  he  would  not  walk  in  Judaea,  because  the  Jews 

circle  He  knew  who  would  show  himself  a  traitor — 'a  devil.'  Many 
weaker  interpretations,  but  all  baseless,  have  been  given  of  this  word. 
The  traitor  will  do  his  work  at  the  instigation  of  the  Evil  One,  and 
animated  by  his  spirit :  his  work  will  be  the  work  of  the  devil :  he 
himself  in  doing  it  will  be  the  associate  of  Satan  ;  nay,  as  we  shall 
see,  he  will  be  more. 

Ver.  71.  Now  he  spake  of  Judas  the  son  of  Simon  Isca- 
riot.  Here  we  meet  for  the  first  time  in  this  Gospel  with  the  name 
Iscariot ;  and  it  will  be  observed  that  (as  in  13:  26)  it  is  connected 
not  with  the  name  of  Judas  (as  in  12:  4;  13:  2;  14:  22),  but  with 
that  of  his  father.  In  all  probability  the  word  signifies  '  man  of  Ke- 
rioth,'  a  town  in  the  tribe  of  Judah  (see  Josh.  15:  25).  Apparently 
Judas  was  the  only  apostle  not  of  Galilee,  and  the  peculiarity  of  his 
name  (identical  with  Judah  and  'the  Jews')  is  certainly  not  over- 
looked by  the  Evangelist.  Nay,  more,  not  only  is  Judas  of  Kerioth, 
that  town  of  Judah  and  the  Jews,  his  father  is  so  too.  The  double 
link  of  connection  seems  to  deepen  the  thought  — For  he  it  "was 
that  -was  about  to  betray  him — one  of  the  tw^elve,  Judas 
was  not  yet  the  traitor  ;  *  was  about  to  '  expresses  only  the  futurity  of 
the  event ;  but  how  much  is  the  criminality  of  the  germ  already 
springing  up  in  his  heart  heightened  by  the  closing  remark,  in  which 
we  see  at  once  the  anger  and  the  pathos  of  the  Evangelist — 'being  one 
of  the  Twelve!' 

Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  vers.  1-13. 

Contexts. — The  same  line  of  th' ught  as  that  which  we  have  found  in  the  two 
previous  chapters  is  continued  in  that  before  us.  He  who  is  the  Fulfiller  of  the 
Sabbath  and  of  the  Passover  is  the  Fulfiller  also  of  the  great  feast  in  which  the  festi- 
vals of  the  Jewish  year  culminated — that  of  Tabernficles.  The  first  section  of  the 
chapter  gives  an  account  of  the  circumstances  in  which  Jesus  went  up  to  this  feast, 
the  subordinate  parts  being— (I)  vers.  1-9,  Jesus  declines  to  go  up  to  it  at  the  request 
of  His  brethren,  for  He  can  act  only  at  the  suggestion  of  His  heavenly  Father's  will; 
(2)  vers.  10-13,  He  goes  up  when  He  sees  that  the  hour  for  doing  so  is  come. 

Ver.  1.  And  after  these  things  Jesus  walked  in  Galilee: 
for  he  would  not  walk  in  Judaea,  because  the  Jews  sought 
to  kill  him.     The  events  of  chap.  6  belonged  to  the  period  of  the 


170  JOHN  VII.  [7 :  2. 

2  sought  to  kill  him.     Now   the  feast  of  the  Jews,  the 

Passover ;  chap.  7  is  occupied  with  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles.  The 
interval  covered  by  the  brief  description  of  this  verse,  therefore,  is 
about  six  months.  During  that  time  Jesus  '  was  walking  in  Galilee,' 
for  in  Judaea  His  enemies  'were  seeking  to  kill  Him.'  As  it  is  John 
himself  who  gives  the  notes  of  time  from  which  we  learn  the  length 
of  this  period,  we  have  here  another  illustration  of  the  selective  prin- 
ciple on  which  his  Gospel  is  composed.  The  ministry  in  Galilee  is  in 
the  main  passed  over,  partly,  no  doubt,  because  the  Evangelist  well 
knew  that  the  types  of  Gospel  teaching  that  were  most  widely  current 
chiefly  presented  the  Saviour's  work  in  Galilee :  partly,  because  this 
work  was  less  closely  connected  with  his  purpose  to  bring  out  with 
clearness  the  progress  and  development  of  the  conflict  between  Jesus 
and  the  representatives  of  the  Jewish  people.  The  period  before  us 
receives  a  lengthened  notice  in  two  of  the  earlier  Gospels.  We  may, 
with  great  probability,  refer  to  it  four  chapters  in  Matthew  (15-18), 
three  in  Mark  (7-9),  besides  half  of  the  ninth  chapter  in  Luke.  To 
it,  therefore,  belong  our  Lord's  visits  to  the  borders  of  Tyre  and  Sidon, 
the  miracles  wrought  for  the  Syrophoenician  woman  and  for  the  deaf 
and  dumb  man  in  Decapolis,  the  feeding  of  the  four  thousand,  Peter's 
second  confession  followed  by  our  Lord's  announcement  of  His  ap- 
proaching sufi'erings  and  death,  the  Transfiguration,  together  with 
other  miracles  and  discourses.  The  principal  outward  characteristics 
of  this  portion  of  our  Lord's  public  ministry  are  the  wider  range  of 
His  travels  and  the  comparative  privacy  which  He  seems  usually  to 
have  maintained  :  the  progress  in  the  training  of  the  Twelve,  which 
is  most  observable,  we  may  also  in  great  measure  connect  with  the 
retirement  thus  sought  by  their  Master. 

Ver.  2.  And  the  feast  of  the  Je^ws,  the  feast  of  taberna- 
cles, was  at  hand.  This  annual  festival,  the  last  of  the  three  at 
which  the  men  of  Israel  were  required  to  present  themselves  before 
the  Lord  in  Jerusalem,  began  on  the  15th  of  Tizri,  that  is,  either  late 
in  September  or  early  in  October.  It  had  a  twofold  significance,  being 
at  once  a  harvest  festival  and  a  historical  memorial  of  the  earliest  days 
of  the  nation.  At  the  '  feast  of  Ingathering'  (Ex.  23  :  16)  the  peo- 
ple gave  thanks  for  the  harvest,  now  safely  gathered  in  :  the  '  feast  of 
Tabernacles,'  during  the  seven  days  of  which  they  dwelt  in  booths  or 
huts,  recalled  the  years  which  their  fathers  spent  in  the  desert  (Lev. 
23:  39-43).  The  mode  in  which  the  feast  was  celebrated  must  be 
noticed  in  connection  with  later  verses  (see  note  on  ver.  38) :  here  we 
need  only  add  that  this  festival,  spoken  of  by  Josephus  as  '  the  holiest 
and  greatest'  of  all,  was  a  season  of  the  most  lively  rejoicing  (see 
Neh.  8:  16-18),  and  was  associated  at  once  with  the  most  precious 
recollections  of  the  past  and  the  most  sacred  hopes  for  the  future  of 
the  nation.  In  particular,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  hereafter,  the 
feast  had  come  to  be  regarded  as  the  type  and  emblem  of  the  glory  of 
the  latter  day,  when  the  Spirit  of  God  should  be  poured  out  like  floods 


7  :  3,  4.]  JOHN  TIL  171 

3  feast  of  tabernacles,  was  at  hand.  His  brethren 
therefore  said  unto  him,  Depart  hence,  and  go  into 
Judaea,  tliat  thy  disciples   also  may  behold  thy  works 

4  which   thou   doest,  For  no  man   doeth    anything  in 

upon  the  ground  (Isa.  35).  On  the  expression  '  feast  of  the  Jews,' 
see  the  notes  on  chap.  2  :  13 ;  6  :  4.  To  what  extent  the  joyous  and 
holy  feast  of  the  Lord  could  be  perverted  by  the  malice  and  hatred  of 
'  the  Jews'  this  chapter  will  clearly  show. 

Ver.  3.  His  brethren  therefore  said  unto  him,  Depart 
hence,  and  go  into  Judaea,  that  thy  disciples  also  may  be- 
hold thy  -works  -which  thou  doest.  His  brothers,  in  thus  urg- 
ing Him  to  depart  into  Judaea,  have  distinctly  in  mind  (as  appears  from 
ver.  8)  the  approaching  feast  and  the  concourse  of  people  which 
would  soon  be  assembling  in  Jerusalem.  It  is  important  to  keep  this 
in  mind  if  we  would  understand  the  position  occupied  by  the  brothers 
of  Jesus.  They  were  not  believers  in  Him  (ver.  5),  that  is,  they  did 
not  accept  Him  as  the  Messiah  ;  in  their  own  words  they  separated 
themselves  from  the  number  of  His  disciples  (ver.  3)  ;  and  as  yet  they 
were  accounted  by  Him  as  belonging  to  '  the  world  '  (ver.  7).  On  the 
other  hand,  there  is  no  trace  of  disbelief  or  disparagement  of  His 
works  ;  for  the  words,  '  Thy  works  that  Thou  doest,'  were  not  spoken 
in  irony  ;  and  '  if  Thou  doest'  (ver.  4)  need  not  express  the  slightest 
doubt.  To  these  '  brethren,'  then,  brought  up  in  the  prevalent  Messi- 
anic belief,  there  appeared  an  .inconsistency  between  the  loftiest  of 
His  claims  and  the  comparatively  limited  display  of  what  He  offered 
as  His  credentials  ;  the  reserve  with  which  He  manifested  His  powers 
went  far  with  them  towards  destroying  the  impressions  made  by  His 
miracles.  But  one  of  the  chief  festivals  was  now  at  hand.  Neither  at 
the  Passover  of  this  year  nor  at  the  feast  of  Weeks  (Pentecost)  had 
He  gone  up  to  Jerusalem  :  why  should  He  avoid  publicity,  and  ap- 
pear to  shun  that  decisive  testing  of  His  claims  which  was  possi- 
ble in  Jerusalem  alone.  By  '  Thy  disciples,'  the  brethren  of  Jesus  do 
not  simply  mean  '  Thy  disciples  in  Judaea.'  In  this  case  the  word 
*  there'  must  have  been  inserted  as  bearing  the  chief  emphasis  of  the 
sentence.  As  we  have  just  seen,  the  recent  labors  of  Jesus  in  northern. 
Galilee  had  been  marked  by  privacy.  For  the  most  part  the  Twelve 
only  had  witnessed  His  works ;  at  times  some  even  of  these  had  been 
excluded.  At  the  feast  the  whole  body  of  His  disciples  would  be 
gathered  together,  and  what  might  be  done  in  Jerusalem  would  be 
conspicuous  to  all. — On  the  'brothers'  of  the  Lord  se&  the  note  on 
chap.  2  :  12  ;  after  this  paragraph  (vers.  3,  5,  10),  they  are  not  men- 
tioned again  in  this  Gospel ;  in  chap.  20 :  17  the  words  have  a  differ- 
ent meaning. 

Ver.  4.  For  no  one  doeth  any  thing  in  secret,  and  him- 
self seeketh  to  be  in  boldness.  '  To  be  in  boldness '  may 
seem  a  singular  expression ;    the  Greek  words,  however,  will  not  ad« 


172  JOHN  VII.  [7 :  5,  6. 

secret,    ^and   himself  seeketh  to  be    known   openly. 
If  thou   doest    these  things,  manifest   thyself  to  the 

5  world.    For  even  his  brethren  did  not  believe  on  him. 

6  Jesus    therefore   saith    unto  them.   My   time    is  not 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  and  seketh  it  to  he  known  openly. 

mit  of  the  rendering  '  to  be  known  openly  ;'  and  it  is  clear  that  the 
form  of  the  phrase  is  chosen  so  as  to  be  iu  correspondence  with  what 
precedes,  *  doeth  anything  in  secret.'  The  Greek  word  rendered 
'boldness'  occurs  nine  times  in  this  Gospel,  four  times  in  John's  First 
Epistle,  and  eighteen  times  in  the  rest  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
every  case  it  denotes  either  boldness,  as  opposed  to  fear  or  caution 
(see  vers  13,  26;  11  :  5J:;  18:  20),  or  plainness  of  language  as  op- 
posed to  reserve  (chap.  10:  24;  11:  14;  16:  25,29);  here  the 
meaning  is  'to  take  a  bold  position.'  Working  miracles  in  secret  and 
a  bold  claim  of  personal  dignity  and  office  are,  in  the  view  of  these 
men,  things  incompatible  with  one  another. — If  thou  doest  these 
things,  manifest  thyself  to  the  world.  These  words  are  very 
remarkable.  The  brothers  would  use  them  as  '  meaning  '  to  all  men,' 
i.  e.  ♦  to  all  Israel'  gathered  together  at  the  feast  (com.  chap.  12  :  19) ; 
but  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  Evangelist  sees  here  the  language  of  un- 
conscious prophecy,  such  as  appears  in  many  other  places  of  this  Gos- 
pel, and  in  one  case  at  least  (chap.  11 :  51)  is  expressly  noted  by  him- 
self. The  words  are  now  uttered  with  a  true  instinct ;  they  will  be 
fulfilled  in  their  widest  sense. 

Ver.  5.  For  not  even  did  his  brethren  believe  in  him.  This 
verse  seems  to  afford  an  unanswerable  argument  against  those  who  hold 
that  amongst  these  '  brothei-s  '  of  our  Lord  were  included  two  or  three 
of  the  twelve  apostles.  How  long  this  unbelief  lasted  we  cannot  tell : 
the  words  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  15:  7,  'Then  Re  appeared  to  James/ 
make  it  very  probable  that  it  waj  by  our  Lord's  resurrection  from  tke 
dead  that  the  brothers  were  led  to  a  true  belief  in  that  Divine  mission 
which,  in  spite  of  the  earlier  miracles  they  had  witnessed,  they  had 
refused  to  accept. 

Ver.  6.  Jesus  therefore  saith  unto  them.  My  time  is  not 
yet  present,  but  your  time  is  always  ready.  The  answer  is  re- 
markably akin  to  that  address  to  ITis  mother  in  chap.  2  :  4.  Very 
different,  probably,  were  the  mother  and  the  brethren  in  their  meas- 
ure of  faith,  and  in  the  motive  of  their  words ;  but  in  each  case  there 
betrayed  itself  a  conviction  that  Jesus  might  be  influenced  by  human 
counsel  in  the  manifestations  of  Himself.  Here  as  there  His  time  was 
at  hand,  but  not  yet  '  present ;'  and  until  the  moment  appointed  by 
the  Father  He  whose  will  is  one  with  that  of  the  Father  can  do  noth- 
ing. Such  limitation  did  not  apply  to  His  brethren  ;  they  were  not 
separated  from  the  '  world,'  and  with  that  world  they  might  at  any 
time  associate. 


7:  7-10.]  JOHN  VII.  173 

7  yet   come;     but   your    time   is    alway  ready.      The 
world  caunot  hate   you  ;    but  me  it   hateth,  because 

8  I   testify  of  it,  that  its   works  are  evil.     Go  ye  up 
unto  the  feast :  I  go  not  up  Vet*  unto  this  feast ;  be- 

9  cause   my   time  is   not  yet   fulfilled.      And   having 
said  these  things  unto  them,  he  abode  still  in  Galilee. 

10      But   when   his    brethren  were   gone   up   unto  the 
feast,  then   went  he   also   up,  not  publicly,  but  as  it 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  omit  yet, 
*  For  "  I  go  not  up  yet  "  read  "  I  go  not  up"  and  change  the  marg.  to  Many  ancient 
authorities  add  yet. — Am.  Com. 

Yer.  7.  The  -world  cannot  hate  you ;  but  me  it  hateth, 
because  I  bear  -witness  concerning  it,  that  its  works  are 
•wicked.  Jesus  takes  up  the  word  which  they  had  used  ;  but  in  His 
mouth  it  has  a  depth  of  solemn  meaning  of  which  they  knew  nothing. 
With  them  the  world  was  the  whole  body  of  Israelites,  with  whom  lay 
the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  His  claims,  with  Him  the  world  was  a 
hostile  power,  to  which  indeed  He  will  manifest  Himself,  but  which 
He  has  come  to  subdue.  Jesus  and  His  brothers  stand  in  opposite  re- 
lations to  the  world, — they  at  one  with  it,  He  the  Reprover  of  its 
wicked  works.  This  diflFerence  of  relation  makes  necessary  a  differ- 
ence of  action  :  they  cannot  understand,  much  less  can  they  guide, 
His  course. 

Ver.  8.  Go  ye  up  unto  the  feast :  I  go  not  up  yet  unto  this 
feast,  because  my  time  is  not  yet  fulfilled.  The  words  '  not 
yet'  imply  an  intention  of  attending  the  festival,  though  as  yet  the 
appointed  time  had  not  come.  The  interval  before  it  comes  may  be  of 
the  shortest,  but  the  '  not  yet'  lasts  till  the  'now'  comes,  and  then  the 
obedience  must  be  instant  and  complete  It  is  well  known  that  this 
verse  furnished  Porphyry,  the  assailant  of  Christianity  in  the  third 
century,  with  one  of  his  arguments.  In  his  Greek  text  of  the  Gospel 
the  reading  was,  '  I  go  not  up  unto'  (the  word  '  yet '  being  absent),  and 
upon  this  Porphyry  founded  an  accusation  of  fickleness  and  change 
of  purpose. 

Ver.  9.  And  -when  he  had  said  these  things  unto  them 
he  abode  still  in  Galilee.  How  long,  we  are  not  informed.  As, 
however,  it  would  seem  that  His  brothers  were  on  the  point  of  setting 
out  for  Jerusalem,  to  be  present  at  the  beginning  of  the  festival,  and 
as  He  Himself  was  teaching  in  the  temple  when  the  sacred  week  had 
half  expired  (ver.  14),  the  interval  spent  in  Galilee  can  hardly  have 
been  more  than  two  or  three  days. 

Ver.  10.  And  when  his  brethren  had  gone  up  unto  the 
feast,  then  v;-ent  he  also  up,  not  manifestly  but  as  in  secret. 
We  must  not  sever  '  manifestly  '  from  '  manifest  thyself,"  in  ver.  4. 
Had  Jesus  joined  any  festal  band,  it  would  have  been  impossible 


174  JOHN  VII.  [7:  11-13. 

11  were  in  secret.     The  Jews  therefore  sought  him,  at 

12  the  feast,  and  said.  Where  is  he  ?  And  there  was 
much  murmuring  among  the  multitudes  concerning 
him :   some   said.  He   is  a   good  man :   others  said, 

13  Not  so,  but  he  leadeth  the  multitude  astray.     How- 

(without  an  express  miracle)  to  restrain  the  impetuous  zeal  of  Gali- 
lean pilgrims,  of  whom  very  many  had  witnessed  His  '  signs '  and  lis- 
tened to  His  words.  To  have  gone  up  publicly  would  have  been  to 
'  manifest  Himself  to  the  world.'  At  the  next  great  feast,  the  Passover 
of  the  following  year,  He  did  enter  the  holy  city  in  triumph,  thus 
proclaimed  King  of  Israel  by  the  rejoicing  multitudes.  For  this,  how- 
ever, the  time  was  not  yet  come.  It  is  very  probable  that  this  journey 
must  be  identified  with  that  related  in  Luke  9 :  51  sqq.  The  privacy 
here  spoken  of  has  been  thought  inconsistent  with  Luke's  s-tatement 
that  Jesus  at  that  time  traveled  through  Samaria  with  His  disciples, 
'  sending  messengers  before  him  '  (Luke  9  :  52).  But  the  divergence 
is  only  apparent.  Jesus  went  up  'in  secret,'  in  that  He  avoided  the 
train  of  Galilean  pilgrims,  who  may  have  reached  Jerusalem  before 
He  set  out  from  Galilee  ;  besides,  it  is  probable  that  the  route  through 
Samaria,  though  not  altogether  avoided  by  the  festal  companies  (as 
we  know  from  Josephus),  would  be  more  rarely  taken.  The  sending 
of  messengers  implies  no  publicity  ;  for  such  a  company  as  this, 
composed  of  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  such  a  precaution  might  well  be 
essential. 

Ver.  11.  The  Jews  therefore  sought  him  at  the  feast,  and 
said,  Where  is  he  ?  Their  expectation  that  He  would  be  present 
at  this  festival  may  have  rested  on  no  other  ground  than  the  national 
usage,  to  which  Jesus  had  occasionally  conformed  even  during  His 
public  ministry.  Possibly  His  words  (ver  8)  '  I  go  not  up  yet'  may 
have  become  known  to  the  Galilean  multitude,  and  hence  to  the  Jews. 
Verses  1  and  13  seem  to  leave  very  little  doubt  that  the  'seeking' 
was  of  a  hostile  character.  By  'the  Jews,'  the  Evangt  list  still  means 
the  ruling  class,  those  whom  worldliness  and  self-seeking  had  long 
since  turned  into  the  declared  enemies  of  Jesus. 

Ver.  12.  And  there  -was  much  murmuring  among  the  mul- 
titudes concerning  him.  Some  said,  He  is  a  good  man : 
but  others  said,  Nay,  but  He  leadeth  astray  the  multitude. 
From  the  'Jews'  the  Evangelist  turns  to  the  'multitudes.*  Amongst 
these  is  eager  discussion  concerning  Jesus  ;  the  speculation,  the  hesi- 
tation, the  inquiry,  were  general,  but  all  outward  expression  was  sup- 
pressed. The  use  of  the  plural  '  multitudes'  seems  to  point  to  crowds 
rather  than  individuals  as  the  disputants.  The  word  *  multitude,' 
however,  at  the  close  of  the  verse  is  not  without  a  contemptuous  force, 
— it  is  the  common  crowd  that  He  leads  astray  :  possibly  the  multi- 
tudes of  Jerusalem  may  be  the  speakers. 

Ver.  13.     Howbeit  no  man  spake  boldly  concerning  him, 


7  2  14,  15.]  JOHN  VII.  175 

beit  no  man  spake   openly  of    him  for  fear  of  the 
Jews. 

Chapter  7  :  14-52. 

Discourses  of  Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles, 

14  But  when  it  was  now  the  midst  of  the  feast  Jesus 

15  went   up   into  the  temple,  and   taught.     The  Jews 

because  of  the  fear  of  the  Je-ws.  Both  sides,  through  their  fear 
of  the  Jews,  shrank  from  speaking  out  their  thoughts.  So  complete 
was  the  ascendancy  of  these  rulers  over  the  people  that  no  one  ven- 
tured on  any  open  discussion  of  the  claims  of  Jesus.  There  was  no 
doubt  a  belief  that  '  the  Jews '  were  hostile  to  Him,  but  no  public  con- 
demnation had  been  pronounced, — possibly  no  decision  had  been  ar- 
rived at :  till  the  leaders  spoke  out  the  people  could  only  mutter  their 
opinions. — Thus,  then,  the  picture  of  what  Jerusalem  was  at  this  mo- 
ment is  completed.  Met  together  at  the  feast  are  Galileans,  already 
half  believers  in  Jesus,  ready  to  be  roused  into  enthusiastic  activity 
by  a  display  of  His  power  ;  hostile  Jews,  the  ecclesiastical  authorities 
and  those  who  shared  their  spirit,  determined  to  crush  out  all  inquiry 
as  to  His  claim  ;  and  multitudes  discussing  these  in  secret,  and  re- 
vealing the  utmost  discordance  of  opinion.  Everywhere  we  see  move- 
ment, uncertainty,  hope,  or  fear. 

Discourses  of  Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  vers.  14-52. 

Contents. — In  this  section  Jesus  appears  at  the  Feast,  to  which  He  went  up  when 
His  Father's,  and  therefore  His  own,  hour  was  come.  The  opportunity  afiForded  by 
it  of  teaching  is  embraced,  and  we  are  presented  with  the  teaching  and  its  effect. 
In  the  successive  discourses  recorded,  the  same  general  line  of  thought  is  to  be  traced 
as  in  chaps.  5  and  6.  But  a  particular  direction  is  given  them  by  the  circumstances 
amidst  which  they  are  spoken.  Jesus  comes  again  before  us  as  the  FulfiUer  of  the 
law,  of  the  last  and  greatest  of  the  annual  feasts  of  Israel — that  feast  which,  in  the 
language  of  the  prophets,  shadowed  forth  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  and  the  highest  glory 
of  Messianic  times.  The  effect  is,  as  usual,  two  fold:  some  are  attracted,  othera^are 
repelled.  The  subordinate  parts  are— (1)  vers.  14r-24;  (2)  vers.  25-31;  (3)  vers.  32-36; 
(4)  vers.  37-39;  (5)  vers.  40-44;  (6)  vers.  45-52. 

Ver.  14.  And  when  it  was  already  the  middle  of  the 
feast,  Jesus  went  up  into  the  temple-ooutts,  and  taught.   It 

is  evident  that  the  Evangelist  means  to  impress  us  with  the  sudden- 
ness of  this  appearance  of  Jesus  in  the  temple-courts.  The  Lord  sud- 
denly comes  to  His  temple,  and,  at  this  feast  of  peculiar  joy  and  hope, 
He  brings  with  Him  a  special  message  and  promise  of  the  new  cove- 
nant (ver.  38  ;  Mai.  3:1).  His  teaching  during  the  latter  half  of  the 
sacred  week  is  to  prepare  for  His  words  on  the  last  day  of  the  feast. 

Ver.  15.  The  Jews  therefore  marvelled,  saying,  How^ 
knoweth  this  man  letters,   having  never  learned?     The 


176  JOHN  VII.  [7:  16,  17. 

therefore  marvelled,  saying,  How  knoweth  this  man 

16  letters,  having  never    learned?     Jesus  therefore  an- 
swered them,  and  said.  My  teaching  is  not  mine,  but 

17  his  that  sent  me.     If  any  man  willeth  to  do  his  will, 
he  shall  know  of  the  teaching,  whether  it  be  of  God, 

marvelling  on  the  part  of  the  '  .Jews '  (see  note  on  chap.  5 :  20)  is  not 
an  astonishment  that  compels  further  inquiry  and  leads  towards  be- 
lief. They  are  baffled,  and  forced  to  acknowledge  against  themselves 
what  they  would  fain  have  denied.  It  was  only  after  a  long  series  of 
years  spent  in  study  that  the  Jewish  scholar  was  permitted  to  become 
a  teacher,  and  was  solemnly  ordained  a  member  of  the  community  of 
doctors  of  the  law.  .Jesus,  it  was  known,  had  not  been  taught  in  the 
rabbinical  schools,  nevertheless  He  was  proving  Himself,  in  such  a 
manner  that  His  enemies  could  not  gainsay  the  fact,  a  skilled  and 
powerful  teacher.  Jewish  learning  dealt  chiefly  with  the  letter  of 
the  written  Word  (especially  the  Law),  and  with  the  body  of  unwrit- 
ten tradition.  The  words  which  crown  our  Lord's  teaching  at  this 
feast  enter  into  the  very  heart  and  express  the  inmost  spirit  of  the 
whole  Old  Testament  revelation  (vers.  88,  39). 

Ver.  16.  Jesus  therefore  answered  them,  and  said,  My 
teaching  is  not  mine,  but  his  that  sent  me.  It  was  the 
practice  of  Jewish  Rabbis  to  proclaim  from  whom  they  '  received ' 
their  teaching,  and  to  quote  the  sayings  of  the  wise  men  who  preceded 
them.  What  they  proclaimed  of  themselves,  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
proclaims  of  itself  to  all  worthy  listeners.  His  teaching,  though  He 
had  never  '  learned '  it  in  the  sense  in  which  they  use  the  term,  is  yet 
not  His  own*,  neither  in  its  substance  nor  in  its  authority  must  they 
count  it  His.  As  His  works  were  those  which  the  Father  gave  Him 
to  accomplish  (chap.  5 :  36),  so  His  words  were  the  expression  of  the 
truth  which  He  has  heard  from  God  (8:  40),  and  the  Father  hath 
given  Him  commandment  what  He  shall  say  (12:  49).  Hence  His 
wor.ds  are  God's  words,  and  the  teaching  comes  with  the  authority  of 
God.  Such  teaching  is  self-evidential,  where  man  really  wishes  to 
hear  the  voice  of  God  ;  for — 

Ver.  17.  If  any  one  •will  to  do  his  "will,  he  -will  perceive 
of  the  teaching,  w^hether  it  is  of  God,  or  -whether  I  speak 
from  myself.  Many  a  time  did  the  Jews  refuse  to  recognize  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  unless  He  could  prove  by  a  miracle  that  God  was 
working  with  Him.  Here  He  tells  them  that,  had  they  the  will  to  do 
God's  will,  they  would  need  no  miracle  in  evidence  that  in  His  teach- 
ing they  heard  the  words  of  God :  as  the  child  at  once  recognizes  his 
father.' s  voice,  so  would  they,  if  living  in  harmony  with  God's  will 
and  purpose,  recognize  in  His  voice  the  voice  of  God.  Such  recogni- 
tion of  the  words  of  Jesus  is  the  test,  therefore,  of  a  will  bent  on  doing 
the  will  of  God,  and  every  such  effort  of  will  is  consciously  strength- 
ened by  His  words ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  heart  which  seeks 


7:  18.]  JOHN  VII.  177 

18  or  whether  I  speak  from  myself.  He  that  speaketh 
from  himself  seeketh  his  own  glory :  but  he  that 
seeketh  the  calory  of  him  that  sent  him,  the  same  is 

its  own  glory,  and  not  the  glory  of  God,  is  repelled  by  them  (chap.  5 : 
44).  No  words  can  more  clearly  show  that  the  very  end  of  the  teach- 
ing of  Jesus,  a?  set  forth  in  this  Gospel,  is  not  empty  speculation,  but 
practical  righteousness.  It  may  be  asked.  Is  our  Lord  merely  stating 
a  truth  ('he  will  perceive'),  or  is  He  also  giving  a  promise  ('he  shall 
perceive — shall  come  to  know')  ?  Both  thoughts  are  implied.  Jesus 
dues  not  say,  that  the  clear  conception  comes  at  once — but  come  it 
will,  come  it  shall.  The  last  words  must  be  carefully  distinguished 
from  those  of  chap.  5:  31,  etc.,  'bearing  witness  concerning  Myself.' 
Here  the  word  used  refers  to  the  origin,  the  source,  of  the  speaking ; 
and  the  meaning  exactly  agrees  Avith  chap.  5:  30 — there  'doing,' 
here  'speaking,'  from  or  of  Himself.  The  words  of  ver.  17  are  espe- 
cially remarkable  when  we  call  to  mind  that  they  were  addressed  to 
persons  all  whose  thoughts  of  revelation  as  a  thing  demonstrated  to 
man  were  connected  with  tokens  of  the  Divine  presence  appealing  to 
the  senses.  What  a  new  world  did  it  open  up  to  tell  them  that  per- 
ception of  the  Divine  origin  of  any  teaching  depends  upon  our  seeing 
that  it  strengthens  and  perfects  that  moral  nature  which  is  within  us 
the  counterpart  of  the  Divine  nature  ! 

Ver.  18.  He  that  speaketh  from  himself  seeketh  his  own 
glory.  If  a  man  speaks  from  himself,  giving  out  all  that  he  says  as 
coming  from  himself,  it  is  clear  that  he  is  seeking  the  glory  of  no  one 
but  himself.  If  one  who  so  acts  is  a  messenger  from  another  (and 
here  the  thought  in  the  later  words,  '  him  that  sent  him,'  seems  in- 
tended to  apply  to  the  whole  verse),  it  is  plain  th|it  his  attitude  is 
altogether  false:  he  represents  as  'from  himself  that  which  really  is 
'  from  him  that  sent  him.' — But  he  that  seeketh  the  glory  of 
him  that  sent  him,  the  same  is  true,  and  there  is  no  un- 
righteousness in  him.  From  the  maxim  contained  in  the  first 
clause  of  this  verse  it  follows  at  once  that  whoever  is  not  seeking  his 
own  glory  does  not  speak  from  himself.  But  every  word  of  Jesus 
shows  that  He  seeks  His  Father's  glory:  hence  it  cannot  be  that  He 
is  speaking  from  Himself. — But  as  a  messenger  speaking  from  himself 
and  aiming  at  his  own  glory  is  false  to  his  position  and  work,  so  he 
that  seeks  the  glory  of  the  sender  only  is  true  to  them,  and  there  is 
no  unrighteousness  in  him  ;  his  work  and  duty  as  messenger  are  fully 
accomplished.  These  last  words,  like  the  first  clause  of  the  verse,  are 
perfectly  general,  though  absolutely  realized  in  Christ  alone.  By 
Him  the  condition  is  completely  fulfilled  ;  of  Him  the  freedom  from 
unrighteousness  is  absolutely  true.  This  verse  connects  itself  with 
what  precedes  and  with  what  follows:  (1)  A  will  to  do  God's  will  will 
lead  to  right  judgment  respecting  Christ  (ver.  17),  because  he  who 
has  such  a  will  can  discern  the  complete  submission  of  Jesus  to  the 
•will  of  God,  His  complete  freedom  from  self-seeking  (ver.  18) ;  (2)  Is 
12 


178  JOHN  VII.  [7:  19-20. 

19  true,  and   no   unrighteousness  is  in  him.     Did  not 
Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of  you  doeth 

20  the  law.     Why  seek  ye  to  kill  me?     The  multitude 

it  thus  proved  to  every  one  who  is  seeking  to  do  God's  will  that  Jesus 
is  the  real  messenger  of  God,  accurately  teaching  His  will,  then  the 
accusation  which  is  in  the  minds  of  His  enemies  (vers.  21,  22),  that 
He  has  contradicted  God's  will  in  the  matter  of  the  Sabbath  (chap.  5: 
18),  must  fall  to  the  ground  of  itself. 

Ver.  19.  Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  la-w,  and  no  one  of 
you  doeth  the  la-w  ?  "Why  seek  ye  to  kill  me  ?  There  are 
two  ways  in  which  this  verse  may  be  taken,  and  between  them  it  is 
not  easy  to  decide.  They  turn  on  the  interpretation  of  '  no  one  of 
you  doeth  the  law;'  for  this  may  find  its  explanation  either  in  the 
words  that  immediately  follow  or  in  vers.  21-25.  It  may  be  best  to 
give  the  connection  of  thought  according  to  each  of  these  views.  In 
both  cases  the  'law'  chiefly  denotes  the  Ten  Commandments.  (1) 
The  accusation  of  the  Jews  against  Jesus,  of  having  trangressed  God's 
will,  must  fall  to  the  ground  (ver.  18),  but  not  so  His  accusation 
against  them.  Moses,  whom  all  accepted  as  God's  true  messenger, 
gave  them  the  law,  which  therefore  expressed  God's  will,  and  yet 
every  one  of  them  was  breaking  the  law,  for  they  were  seeking  to  kill 
Jesus.  They  were  therefore  self- convicted  by  their  own  works  of 
opposing  the  revealed  will  of  God ;  no  wonder  therefore  that  they  had 
rejected  Jesus.  In  favor  of  this  explanation  we  may  say  that  the 
words  are  (vers.  15,  16)  addressed  to  'the  Jews,'  whose  murderous 
intention  Jesus  well  knew  not  to  have  been  inspired  by  true  zeal  for 
the  law  ;  that  the  words  so  understood  aptly  follow  vers.  17,  18,  and 
that  we  thus  secure  for  the  solemn  expression  '  doeth  the  law'  a  natu- 
ral and  worthy  sense.  (2)  The  other  explanation  connects  this  verse 
less  strictly  with  ver.  18.  In  Jesus,  as  a  true  messenger,  there  is  no 
unrighteousness.  What  they  have  called  unrighteousness  is  altogether 
righteous ;  nay,  it  is  what  they  themselves  habitually  do,  and  rightly 
do.  Moses  gave  them  the  law,  the  whole  law,  and  yet  there  is  no  one 
of  them  that  keeps  the  whole  law.  Every  one  of  them  (as  the  exam- 
ple afterwards  given  proves)  sets  aside  one  of  two  conflicting  laws, 
breaks  one  commandment  when  there  is  no  other  way  of  keeping  a 
higher  command  inviolate  ;  and  this  is  all  that  Jesus  did  in  the  act 
for  which  they  seek  to  kill  Him.  This  second  explanation  agrees  well 
with  what  follows ;  and,  although  at  first  sight  it  seems  almost  too 
mild  to  be  spoken  to  '  the  Jews,'  it  has  really  great  sharpness.  It 
must  have  at  once  penetrated  their  hearts,  and  thrown  a  light  upon 
the  guilt  and  folly  of  their  conduct  which  they  could  only  evade  by 
again  deliberately  turning  their  eyes  from  the  light.  '  No  one  of  you 
doeth  the  law'  is  also  a  very  heavy  charge.  On  the  whole,  the  second 
interpretation  seems  preferable  to  the  first. 

Ver.  20  The  multitude  answered,  Thou  hast  a  demon ; 
who  seeketh  to  kill  thee  ?     It  is  important  to  observe  that  this 


7:  21,  22.]  JOHN  VII.  179 

answered,  Thou  hast  a  Mevil :  who  seeketh  to  kill 

21  thee  ?     Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  I  did  one 

22  work,  and  ye  all  ^marvel.  For  this  cause  hath  Moses  * 
given  you  circumcision  (not  that  it  is  of  Moses,  but 
of  the  fathers) ;  and  on  the  sabbath  ye  circumcise  a 

1  Gr.  demon. 

2  Or,  marcel  because  of  this.     Moses  hath  given  you  circumcision. 

*  For  "  marvel.     For  this  cause  hath  Moses,"  etc.,  read  '•  marvel  because  thereof. 
Moses  hath,"  etc.,  and  omit  the  marg. — Am.  Com. 

answer  is  returned  by  the  multitude,  not  by  those  to  whom  ver.  19  is 
addressed,  and  the  multitude  is  apparently  in  entire  ignorance  of  the 
designs  of  'the  Jews.'  That  the  people  should  have  thought  posses- 
sion by  a  demon  the  only  possible  explanation  of  the  presence  of  such 
a  thought  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  places  in  boldest  relief  the  guilt  of 
'  the  Jews.'  To  bring  this  out  is  probably  the  explanation  of  the  in- 
sertion of  a  remark  for  which  it  is  otherwise  difficult  to  account. 

Ver.  21.  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  I  did  one 
■work,  and  ye  all  marvel.  This  answer  seems  to  have  been  ad- 
dressed to  the  multitude,  or  rather  to  the  whole  body  of  those  present, 
including  'the  Jews,'  not  to  'the  Jews'  alone  (as  is  supposed  by 
some  who  make  ver.  20  a  parenthesis)  :  hence  the  calmness  of  the 
tone.  'One  work,'  viz.,  that  recorded  in  chap.  5:  1-8 — the  miracle, 
with  all  its  attendant  circumstances.  Many  other  miracles  had  Jesus 
wrought  in  Jerusalem  (chap.  2:  25);  but  this  one  had  caused  all  the 
amazement  and  repulsion  of  feeling  of  which  He  is  here  speaking. 

Ver.  22.  For  this  cause  hath  Moses  given  you  the  cir- 
cumcision (not  that  it  is  of  Moses,  but  of  the  fathers),  and 
ye  on  the  sabbath  day  circumcise  a  man.  The  very  law  was 
intended  to  teach  them  the  fundamental  principle  upon  which  Jesus 
rested  His  defence,  to  look  beyond  the  letter  to  the  spirit,  and  to  see 
that  sometimes  an  ordinance  is  most  honored  when  its  letter  is  broken. 
'For  this  cause' — to  teach  this  lesson — Moses,  who  gave  the  Ten 
Commandments  (ver.  19),  one  of  which  enjoined  the  Sabbath  rest, 
took  up  into  the  law  which  he  gave  (see  ver.  23,  'the  law  of  Moses') 
the  far  earlier  ordinance  of  circumcision,  laying  down  or  rather  re- 
peating the  strict  rule  that  the  rite  must  be  performed  on  the  eighth 
day  (Lev.  12:  3^.  When  this  eighth  day  fell  on  the  Sabbath,  the 
Jews,  however  inconsistent  the  rite  might  seem  with  the  rigid  Sabbath 
rest,  yet,  with  a  true  instinct,  never  hesitated  to  circumcise  a  child. 
They  felt  that  to  receive  the  sign  of  God's  covenant,  the  token  of  con- 
secration and  of  the  removal  of  uncleanness  (and — may  we  add  ? — the 
token  of  the  promise  which  was  before  and  above  the  law.  Gal.  3:  17), 
could  never  be  really  inconsistent  witn  any  command  of  God,  In 
acting  as  they  did,  therefore,  they  proved  that  in  this  matter  the  les- 
son which  the  lawgiver  designed  to  teach  had  been  truly  learned  by 
them ;  yet  it  was  a  lesson  essentially  the  same  as  that  which  the 


180  JOHN  VII.  [7:  23-26. 

23  man.  If  a  man  receiveth  circumcision  on  the  sab- 
bath, that  the  law  of  Moses  may  not  be  broken  ;  are 
ye  Avroth  with  me,  because  I  made  a  man  every  whit 

24  whole*  on  the  sabbath  ?  Judge  not  according  to  ap- 
pearance, but  judge  righteous  judgement. 

25  Some  therefore   of  them  of  Jerusalem  said,  Is  not 

26  this  he  Avhom  they  seek  to  kill  ?  And  lo,  he  speak- 
eth  openly,  and  they  say  nothing  unto  him.       Can  it 

*  "  a  man  every  whit  whole  "  add  margin.  Gr.  a  whole  man  sound. — Am.  Com. 

healing  by  Jesus  on  the  Sabbath  day  had  taught.  This  passage  is  of 
great  interest  as  showing  that  in  many  respects  the  law,  even  whilst 
seeming  to  deal  in  positive  precepts  only,  was  intended  to  become, 
and  in  some  measure  actually  was,  a  discipline,  preparing  for  the 
'  dispensation  of  the  Spirit.' 

Ver.  23.  If  a  man  receiveth  circumcision  on  the  sab- 
bath day,  that  the  la-w  of  Moses  may  not  be  broken,  are  ye 
angry  -with  me,  because  I  made  a  man  every  whit  -whole 
on  the  sabbath  day  ?  Their  reverence  for  the  law  and  their  deter- 
mination that  it  should  not  be  broken  led  them  to  break  the  letter  of 
the  Fourth  Commandment,  or  rather  to  do  that  which  they  would 
otherwise  have  thought  inconsistent  with  its  precept.  How  then  can 
they  be  indignant  at  Jesus  for  the  deed  which  He  had  done  on  the 
sabbath?  He  had  performed  a  far  more  healing  work  than  circum- 
cision. He  had  given  not  merely  a  token  of  the  removal  of  unclean- 
ness,  but  complete  freedom  from  the  blight  and  woe  which  sin  had 
brought  (see  chap.  5:  14)  on  the  'whole  man.'  It  may  be  thought 
that  in  this  last  expression  our  Lord  refers  only  to  the  cure  of  a  dis- 
ease by  Avhich  the  entire  body  had  been  prostrated  ;  but  the  verse 
just  quoted  (chap.  5  :  14)  and  the  recollection  of  the  figurative  and 
spiritual  application  of  the  rite  of  circumcision  with  which  the  prophets 
had  made  the  Jews  familiar,  warn  us  against  limiting  the  miracle  at 
the  pool  of  Bethesda  to  the  restoration  of  phj'sical  health. 

Ver.  24.  Judge  not  according  to  the  appearance,  but 
judge  righteous  judgment.  Righteously  had  they  judged  in  re- 
gard to  themselves.  So  let  them  judge  His  work,  and  they  will  see  that, 
where  they  had  suspected  only  the  presence  of  iniquity,  there  was 
the  highest  righteousness, 

Ver.  2o.  Some  therefore  of  them  of  Jerusalem  said.  Is 
not  this  he  whom  they  seek  to  kill  ?  The  speakers  are  a  dif- 
ferent class  from  those  hitherto  introduced, — '  they  of  Jerusalem  :' 
these  seem  to  have  more  knowledge  of  the  designs  of  *  the  Jews '  than 
was  possessed  by  '  the  multitude  '  (ver.  20). 

Ver.  26.  And,  lo,  he  speaketh  boldly,  and  they  say  noth- 
ing unto  him.  Can  it  be  that  the  rulers  know^  that  this  is 
the  Christ  ?     No  opinion  as  to  these  designs  is  expressed  ;    there  is 


7 :  27-29.]  JOHN  VII.  181 

be  that  the  rulers  indeed  know  that  this  is  the  Christ  ? 

27  Howbeit  we  know  this  man  whence  he  is :  but  when 
the   Christ   cometh,   no  one  knoweth  whence  he  is. 

28  Jesus  therefore  cried  in  the  temple,  teaching  and 
saying,  Ye  both  know  me,  and  know  whence  I  am ; 
and   1  am  not  come  of  myself,  but  he  that  sent  me 

29  is  true,  whom  ye  know  not.     I   know  him ;    because 

neither  sympathy  nor  blame ;  there  is  only  bewilderment,  occasioned 
by  the  inconsistency  between  the  supposed  wishes  of  the  rulers  and 
the  boldness  and  freedom  with  which  Jesus  is  allowed  to  speak.  Can 
it  be  that  there  is  some  secret  reason  for  this, — that  the  rulers  have 
really  made  a  discovery,  which  they  will  not  allow — ,  that  this  is  the 
Christ?  The  question  is  no  sooner  asked  than  it  is  answered  by  them- 
selves : — 

Ver.  27.  Howbeit  "we  know  this  man  whence  he  is  :  but 
when  the  Christ  cometh,  no  one  perceiveth  whence  he  is. 
In  ver.  42  we  read  of  the  expectation  that  the  Christ  would  come  from 
Bethlehem  (see  also  Matt.  2:5).  But  there  is  no  inconsistency  be- 
tween this  verse  and  that,  for  it  seems  to  have  been  the  belief  of  the 
Jews,  that  the  Redeemer  would  indeed  first  appear  in  Bethlehem,  but 
would  then  be  snatched  away  and  hidden,  and  finally  would  after- 
wards suddenly  manifest  Himself, — from  what  place  and  at  what 
time  no  one  could  tell.  So  Je^us  warns  His  disciples  that  the  cry  will 
be  heard,  *  Lo,  here  is  the  Christ :  or,  Lo,  he  is  there.'  (Markl':5:  21). 

Vers.  28,  29.  Jesus  therefore  cried  in  the  temple-courts 
teaching  and  saying.  Knowing  that  such  words  were  in  the 
mouths  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  Jesus  cried  aloud  in  the  hearing 
of  all.  The  word  '  teaching'  may  seem  unnecessary  :  it  appears  to  be 
added  in  order  to  link  what  is  here  said  to  the  teaching  of  vers.  14  and 
16 :  what  He  says  is  no  chance  utterance,  but  forms  part  of  the  teach- 
ing designed  for  this  festival. — Ye  both  know  me,  and  ye  know- 
whence  I  am.  Jesus  allows  that  they  had  a  certain  knowledge  of 
Him,  but  He  does  this  for  the  purpose  of  showing  immediately  there- 
after that  it  was  altogether  inadequate  and  at  fault.  It  was  indeed 
important  in  one  respect,  for  it  involved  the  acknowledgment  of  His 
true  humanity  ;  but,  denying  all  else,  refusing  to  recognise  Him  in 
His  higher  aspect,  scouting  His  claims  to  be  the  Sent  of  God,  the  ex- 
pression of  the  eternal  Father,  it  was  really  no  more  than  an  outward 
and  carnal  knowledge  of  Him,  There  seems  to  be  a  distinction  be- 
tween 'whence  I  am  '  and  '  whence  I  come'  (8  :  14).  The  latter  in- 
cludes more  directly  the  idea  of  the  Divine  mission  of  Jesus. — And  I 
have  not  come  of  myself,  but  he  that  sent  me  is  true, 
whom  ye  know  not.  I  koow^  him,  because  I  am  from  him, 
and  he  sent  me.  Words  containing  that  true  knowledge  of  .Jesus 
which  these  men  '  of  Jerusalem  '  had  not.     It  consists  in  recognising 


182  JOHN  VII,  [7:  30-32. 

30  I  am  from  him,  and  he  sent  me.  They  sought  there- 
fore to  take  him  :    and  no  man  laid  his  hand  on  him, 

31  because  his  hour  was  not  yet  come.  But  of  the 
multitude  many  believed  on  him ;  and  they  said, 
When  the  Christ  shall  come,  will  he  do  more  signs 

32  than  those  which  this  man  hath  done  ?     The   Phari- 

in  Him  the  '  Sent '  of  Him  who  is  '  true,'  not  merely  veracious  or 
faithful,  but  real,  who  is  the  ground  and  essence  of  all  reality,  the 
only  living  and  true  God.  In  this  respect  those  to  whom  Jesus  was 
now  speaking  did  not  know  Him  ;  they  beheld  the  outward  man  ;  they 
did  not  behold  the  manifestation  of  the  eternal  God.  This  ignorance, 
too,  arose  from  the  fact  that  they  did  not  know  God  Himself.  They 
thought  that  they  knew  Him ;  but  they  did  not,  for  they  had  not  pen- 
etrated to  the  right  conception  of  His  spiritual,  righteous  nature,— a 
nature  corresponding  only  to  eternal  realities,  to  what  is  '  true.'  Not 
knowing  God,  how  could  they  know  Jesus  who  *  manifested '  the  true 
God,  who  was  '  from'  the  true  God,  and  whom  the  true  God  '  sent '  ? 
Had  they  known  the  One  they  would  have  recognised  the  Other  (chap. 
5  :  37  ;  8 :  19).  The  words  of  vers.  28,  29  are  thus  words  of  sharp 
reproof. 

Ver.  30.  They  sought  therefore  to  seize  him.  Jesus  had 
not  mentioned  the  name  of  God,  but  those  with  whom  He  spoke  (fa- 
miliar with  modes  of  speech  in  which  the  Divine  Name  was  left,  un- 
spoken and  replaced  by  a  pronoun,  as  here,  or  by  some  attribute) 
did  not  miss  His  meaning.  He  had  denied  to  them  the  knowledge  of 
God,  and  at  the  same  time  had  claimed  for  Himself  the  closest  fellow- 
ship with  Him.  to  be  indeed  the  very  expression  of  what  He  was. — 
And  no  man  laid  his  hand  on  him,  because  his  hour  had 
not  yet  come.  Their  zeal  and  enmity  were  at  once  aroused  ;  the 
'  men  of  Jerusalem  '  followed  in  the  steps  of  'the  Jews'  (ver.  1). 
Yet  they  could  not  touch  Him.  ;or  it  was  not  yet^God's  time. 

Ver.  31.  But  of  the  multitude  many  believed  in  him,  and 
said,  "When  the  Christ  cometh,  "will  he  do  more  signs  than 
these  -which  this  man  hath  done  ?  The  last  verse  showed 
how  the  hostility  to  Jesus  was  growing;  this  verse  presents  the 
brightest  side.  The  division  of  the  people  goes  on  continually  in- 
creasing :  they  who  are  of  the  light  are  attracted  towards  Jesus,  they 
who  are  of  darkness  are  repelled.  The  faith  of  these  believers  is  real 
('they  believed  in  Him')  though  not  so  firm  and  sure  as  that  which 
rests  less  on  '  signs  '  than  on  His  own  word. 

Ver.  32.  The  Pharisees  heard  the  multitude  murmuring 
these  things  concerning  him,  and  the  chief  priests  and  the 
Pharisees  sent  officers  to  seize  him.  To  the  various  parties 
already  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  the  Jews  (vers.  11,  13,  15),  the  mul- 
titudes (ver.  12),  or  the  multitude  (vers.  20,  31),  and  them  of  Jerusa- 
lem (ver.  25),  are  here  added  the  Pharisees  and  also  the  chief  priests- 


7:  32.]  JOHN  VII.  183 

sees    heard  the  multitude   murmuring  these  things 
concerning  him  ;  and  the  chief  priests   and  the  Phar- 

now  mentioned  for  the  first  time  in  this  Gospel.  In  three  earlier  pas- 
sages (chap.  I:  24;  3:  1  ;  4  :  1)  John  has  spoken  of  the  Pharisees, 
and  in  the  last  of  these  only  (chap.  4:  1)  has  there  been  any  intima- 
tion of  either  secret  or  open  hostility  on  the  part  of  this  sect  toward 
our  Lord.  It  is  otherwise  with  the  other  Gospels.  In  the  course 
of  that  Galilean  ministry  which  is  not  distinctly  recorded  by  John 
the  Pharisees  occupy  a  very  distinct  position  as  foes  of  Jesus.  To 
the  period  between  .John's  last  mention  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  pre- 
sent verse  belong  His  controversies  with  them  respecting  fasting,  His 
association  with  sinners  (Matt.  9;  Mark  2;  Luke  5 — compare  Luke 
7:  49),  the  sabbath  (Matt.  12  ;  Mark  2 ;  Luke  6),  the  tradition  of 
the  elders  (Matt.  15  ;  Mark  7),  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins  (Luke  5  ; 
Matt.  9  ;  Mark  2. — compare  Luke  7  :  39).  The  Pharisees  have  at- 
tempted to  persuade  the  multitude  that  He  wrought  His  miracles 
through  the  prince  of  the  devils  (Matt.  9;  Matt.  12;  Mark  3).  He 
has  refused  their  request  that  they  might  see  a  sign  from  heaven 
(Matt.  16;  Mark  8),  and  has  warned  tlie  disciples  against  their  teach- 
ing (Matt.  16  ;  Mark  8)  and  their  '  righteousness'  (Matt.  5  :  20).  In 
Matt.  12:  14  we  read  that  the  Pharisees  (Mark  3:6,  the  Pharisees 
and  the  Herodians)  held  a  consultation  how  they  might  destroy  Him. 
Up  to  this  point,  however,  in  the  narrative  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  it 
would  seem  most  probable  that,  as  a  body,  they  had  not  assumed  a 
position  of  distinct  hostility  to  our  Lord.  It  was  not  in  Galilee, 
of  which  the  earlier  Gospels  speak,  but  in  Jerusalem,  where  were 
their  chief  members  and  influence,  that  an  organized  opposition  could 
best  be  formed  by  them- ;  and  in  many  passages  at  all  events  we 
gather  that  those  of  their  number  who  assailed  Jesus  were  no  more 
than  emissaries  sent  down  from  the  capital  by  the  rulers.  Things  now 
take  a  different  turn  in  John's  Gospel.  The  Pharisees  come  more 
prominently  forward,  act  more  as  a  party  than  as  individuals,  and  be- 
gin to  constitute  a  distinctly  hostile  power  to  Jesus.  The  events  which 
had  passed  in  Galilee,  though  not  noted  by  John,  may  explain  the 
change. — The  chief  priests  are,  as  has  been  said,  first  mentioned  here 
by  John.  In  the  other  Gospels  also  they  are  scarcely  referred  to  up 
to  this  period  of  the  history,  for  Matt.  16:  21  (Mark  8  :  3i  ;  Luke 
9  :  22 )  is  a  prophecy,  and  the  only  remaining  passage  in  the  first  three 
Gospels  is  Matt,  2  :  4,  where  it  is  said  that  Herod  convened  '  all  the 
high  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people.'  It  has  been  supposed  that 
this  expression  denotes  the  Sanhedrin,  but  the  great  court  of  the  na- 
tion did  not  include  '  all  the  scribes.'  With  much  more  certainty  may 
the  words  of  Matt.  16:  21,  '  the  elders  and  the  high  priests  and  the 
scribes,'  be  taken  as  an  enumeration  of  the  three  elements  of  the  su- 
preme council.  What  is  the  exact  meaning  of  chief  priests  or  high 
priests,  thus  spoken  of  in  the  plural,  it  is  perhaps  impossible  to  say. 
The  usual  view  is  that  the  chiefs  of  the  twenty-four  classes  of  priests  are 


184  JOHN  VII.  [7:  33,  34. 

33  isees  sent  officers  to  take  him.     Jesus   therefore  said, 
Yet  a  little  while  ara  I  with  you,  and  I  go  unto  him 

34  that   sent    me.       Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  find 

iotended  ;  but  there  seems  little  or  no  evidence  in  support  of  this  ex- 
planation. The  only  point  on  which  we  can  speak  with  certainty  is 
that  the  expression  must  include  all  living  who  had  been  high  priests. 
In  those  unsettled  times  the  tenure  of  office  was  occasionally  very 
short,  and  always  precarious.  Annas  the  father-in-law  of  Caiaphas 
(chap.  18:  13)  was  deposed  by  the  Roman  Procurator  about  fourteen 
years  before  the  time  of  which  we  now  speak  :  within  three  or  four 
years  of  his  deposition  as  many  as  four  were  appointed  to  the  high- 
priesthood,  the  last  of  whom,  Caiaphas,  retained  office  until  a.  d.  36. 
At  this  time,  therefore,  besides  the  aetual  high  priest,  three  or  four 
may  have  been  living  who  had  once  borne  this  name,  and  their  former 
dignity  would  give  them  weight  in  a  council  which  consisted  of  Jews 
alone.  Whether  prominent  members  of  ftimilies  to  which  present  or 
former  high  priests  belonged  (compare  Act^  4:  6)  were  also  included 
under  this  name,  or  whether  it  denoted  other  priests  who  stood  high 
in  influence  as  members  of  the  Sanhedrin,  is  very  doubtfi^l. — The 
multitude  talked  among  themselves  in  the  temple  of  the  grounds  of 
the  faith  in  Jesus  which  was  growing  in  their  hearts.  Their  talk  is 
secret  ('murmuring'),  but  not  so  secret  that  the  Pharisees  did  not 
overhear  their  words.  Convinced  that  the  teaching  which  so  power- 
fully impresses  the  people  must  be  heard  no  longer,  tkey  seek  there- 
fore the  aid  of  the  chief  priests,  whose  attendants  are  immediately  de- 
spatched with  orders  to  seize  Jesus. 

Yer.  33.  Jesus  therefore  said,  Yet  a  little  "while  am  I 
■with  you,  and  I  go  unto  him  that  sent  me.  In  the  action  now 
taken  by  His  foes  Jesus  sees  a  token  of  the  rapidity  with  which  His 
hour  is  approaching.  These  words,  which  (ver,  35)  were  spoken  in 
the  presence  of  '  the  Jews,'  declare  His  perfect  knowledge  of  their  de- 
signs. But  they  are  also  words  of  judgment,  taking  from  His  enemies 
their  last  hope. 

Yer.  34.  Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me.  The 
frequent  occurrence  of  the  '  seeking"  in  this  chapter  suggests  as  the 
first  meaning  of  these  words,  Ye  will  seek  to  lay  hands  on  me,  but 
shall  not  find  me.  That  was  the  only  '  seeking '  of  which  the  Jews 
wished  to  think.  But  the  eye  of  Jesus  rested  on  the  calamities  from 
which  at  a  future  time  they  would  seek  to  be  delivered  by  the  Christ, 
but  would  seek  in  vain.  His  enemies  have  refused  to  recognise  in  His 
words  the  teaching  of  '  Him  that  sent'  Him  (ver.  16) :  when  He  has 
returned  to  His  Father  their  eyes  will  be  opened  to  their  madness  and 
folly.— And  where  I  am,  ye  cannot  come.  '  Where  I  am,'  He 
says,  'where  I  shall  be:'  here,  as  elsewhere,  the  simple  expression  of 
continuous  existence  is  most  befitting  for  Him  who  is  one  with  the 
Father.  Into  that  Fellowship,  that  Presence,  no  enemies  of  the  Son 
shall  come. 


7:  35.]  JOHN  VII.  185 

35  me  :  and  where  I  am,  ye  cannot  come.  The  Jews 
therefore  said  among  themselves,  Whither  will  this 
man  go  that  we  shall  not  find  him  ?  will  he  go  unto 
the   Dispersion  ^among  the  Greeks,    and  teach    the 

1  Gr.  of. 

Ver.  35.  The  Jews  therefore  said  among  themselves, 
"Whither  is  this  man  about  to  go,  that  -we  shall  not  find 
him?  Our  Lord's  words  were  mysterious,  but  yet  were  so  closely 
linked  with  His  earlier  teaching,  as  related  in  this  very  chapter,  that 
their  general  meaning  would  be  clear  to  every  patient  listener.  Vers. 
16  and  17  were  alone  suflBcient  to  show  that  'to  Him  that  sent  me' 
could  only  mean  'to  God.'  But  this  impression  'the  Jews'  must  at 
all  hazards  avert:  chap.  8:  22  shows  how  eagerly  they  sought  to 
blunt  the  edge  of  such  words  as  Jesus  has  now  spoken.  There  they 
suggest  that  only  by  seeking  death  can  He  escape  their  search  ;  here, 
that  it  is  on  exile  amongst  Gentiles  that  He  has  now  resolved.  His 
teaching  has  seemed  to  them  a  complete  reversal  of  Jewish  modes  of 
thought.  No  learning  of  the  schools  prepared  Him  for  His  self-chosen 
office  (ver.  15);  He  accuses  all  Israel  of  having  broken  the  law  of 
Moses  (ver.  19) ;  He  sets  at  naught  the  most  rigid  rules  of  Sabbath 
observance :  all  things  show  that  He  has  no  sympathy  with,  no  tole- 
rance for,  the  most  firmly  established  laws  and  usages  of  the  Jewish 
people.  And  now  He  is  going,  not  to  return.  Where? — Is  he  about 
to  go  to  the  Dispersion  of  the  Greeks,  and  teach  the 
Greeks?  Can  it  be  that  He  has  cast  otf  Jews  altogether  and  is 
going  to  Gentiles?  This  is  said  in  bitter  scorn;  but  it  may  have  been 
suggested  by  words  of  Jesus  not  expressly  recorded.  In  answering 
His  brethren  just  before  the  feast  (ver.  7),  He  had  spoken  of  'the 
world ;'  before  the  end  of  the  same  feast  (8:  12),  He  says :  '  I  am  the 
light  of  the  world.'  Even  if  we  were  not  to  accept  the  Jewish  tradi- 
tion, which  records  that  in  the  offering  of  the  seventy  bullocks  at  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  there  was  distinct  reference  to  the  ('seventy') 
nations  of  the  Gentile  world— a  tradition  deeply  interesting  and  pro- 
bably true — we  can  have  no  difficulty  in  supposing  that  in  His  teach- 
ing during  the  festival  Jesus  had  repeatedly  used  words  regarding 
'tlie  world'  which  enemies  might  readily  pervert.  His  interest,  they 
say  in  effect,  is  not  with  Jews,  but  with  the  'world:'  is  he  leaving  us? 
— then  surely  He  is  going  to  the  world,  to  the  heathen  whom  He  loves. 
— The  great  difficulty  of  this  verse  is  the  use  of  such  a  phrase  as  '  the 
Dispersion  of  the  Greeks.'  An  explanation  is  furnished  by  the 
thought  already  suggested — that  the  Jews,  with  irony  and  scorn, 
would  show  forth  Jesus  as  reversing  all  their  cherished  instincts,  be- 
liefs and  usages.  If  a  true  Israelite  must  depart  from  the  Holy  Land, 
he  resorts  to  the  Dispersion  of  his  brethren.  Not  so  with  this  man  : 
He  too  is  departing  from  us  ;  but  it  is  a  Dispersion  of  Gentiles,  not  of 
Israelites,  that  He  will  seek ;  it  is  Gentiles  whom  He  will  teach.     As 


186  JOHN  VII.  [7:  36,  37. 

36  Greeks  ?  What  is  this  word  which  he  said,  Ye  shall 
seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me  :  and  w^here  I  am,  ye 
cannot  come. 

37  Now  on  the  last  day,  the  great  day  of  the  feast, 
Jesus  stood  and  cried,  saying.  If  any  man  thirst,  let 

in  the  case  of  Caiaphas  (chap.  11 :  50,  51),  so  here;  words  spoken  in 
hate  and  scorn  are  an  unconscious  prophecy.  He  will  teach  and 
gather  together  the  children  of  God  that  are  scattered  abroad — this  is 
the  very  purpose  of  His  coming.  The  book  which  is  the  companion 
to  this  Gospel,  the  Apocalypse,  contains  many  examples  of  this  new 
and  (so  to  speak)  converse  application  of  familiar  words.  Thus  in 
Rev.  1 :  7  we  find  mankind  designated  as  '  tribes  of  the  earth.'  It  is 
right  to  say,  that  the  explanation  of '  Dispersion  of  the  Greeks '  which 
we  have  given  is  not  that  generally  received.  The  common  view  is 
that  the  Jews  represent  Jesus  as  going  to  'the  Dispersion  amongst 
the  Gentiles,'  and,  from  this  as  a  point  of  departure  (like  the  apostles 
of  Jesus  afterwards),  becoming  a  teacher  of  the  Gentiles.  But  (1) 
This  meaning  can  hardly  be  obtained  without  straining  the  original 
words.  (2)  As  probably  many  of  'the  multitude'  themselves  be- 
longed to  '  the  Dispersion,'  the  added  words  'of  the  Greeks'  would  be 
useless  if  intended  as  explanatory,  insulting  if  used  for  depreciation. 
(3)  The  first  clause  becomes  almost  superfluous;  why  should  they  not 
say  at  once,  Is  He  about  to  go  amongst  the  Greeks?  (4)  The  intro- 
duction of  a  '  point  of  departure '  or  connecting  link  is  most  unsuita- 
ble to  the  present  state  of  feeling  of  cur  Lord's  enemies,  'the  Jews.' 

Ver.  36.  What  is  this  -word  which  he  spake,  Ye  shall 
seek  me,  and  shall  not  find  me :  and  -where  I  am,  ye  cannot 
come  ?  This  verse  contains  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  the 
Saviour's  former  statement,  but  is  useful  in  reminding  us  that  the 
Jews,  whose  bitter  words  we  hav«  just  been  considering,  were  them- 
selves perplexed  by  what  they  heard.  We  must  not  suppose  that 
they  pondered  and  then  rejected  the  teaching  of  Jesus;  their  enmity 
rendered  impossible  that  patient  thought  which  would  have  found  the 
key  to  His  mysterious  language ;  they  understood  enough  to  have 
been  attracted,  had  they  only  been  willing  listeners,  by  the  light  and 
the  life  of  His  words.  Their  ignorance  resulted  from  the  absence  of 
the  will  to  learn  and  to  do  God's  will  (ver.  17). 

Ver.  37.  And  in  the  last  day,  the  great  day,  of  the  feast. 
The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  properly  so  called  continued  seven  days. 
During  (a  part  of)  each  day  all  the  men  of  Israel  dwelt  in  booths 
made  with  boughs  of  palm,  willow,  pine  and  other  trees.  Day  by  day 
burnt-offerings  and  other  sacrifices  were  presented  in  unusual  profu- 
sion. Every  morning,  whilst  the  Israelites  assembled  in  the  temple- 
courts,  one  of  the  priests  brought  water  drawn  in  a  golden  urn  from 
the  pool  of  Siloam,  and  amidst  the  sounding  of  trumpets  and  other 
demonstrations  of  joy  poured  the  water  upon  the  altar.     This  rite  is 


7 :  38.]  JOHN  VII.  *  187 

38  him  come  unto  me,  and  drink.     He  that  believeth  on 

not  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but,  as  a  commemoration  of  the 
miraculous  supply  of  water  in  the  wilderness,  it  was  altogether  in 
harmony  with  the  general  spirit  of  the  festival.  The  chanting  of  the 
great  Hallel  (Ps.  113-118)  celebrated  the  past;  but  (as  we  learn  from 
the  Talmud)  the  Jews  also  connected  with  the  ceremony  the  words  of 
Isaiah  (12:  3),  'Therefore  with  joy  shall  ye  draw  water  out  of  the 
wells  of  salvation,'  and  saw  in  it  a  type  of  the  effusion  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  On  the  evening  of  the  first  and  (probably)  of  each  following 
day  the  '  rejoicing  of  the  drawing  of  the  water'  was  celebrated  in  the 
court  of  the  women,  with  dancing,  singing,  and  music ;  and  lamps, 
raised  on  four  immense  candelabra  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  same 
court  illumined  both  the  temple  and  the  city.  On  the  seventh  day 
the  ordinary  ceremonies  of  the  feast  came  to  an  end.  There  was  added, 
however,  an  eighth  day  (Num.  29:  35],  a  day  of  holy  convocation,  on 
which  no  work  might  be  done.  This  day  did  not  strictly  belong  to 
the  feast,  but  was  'a  feast  by  itself,'  perhaps  as  closing  (not  only  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles,  but  also)  the  whole  series  of  festivals  for  the 
year ;  naturally,  however,  it  became  attached  to  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles in  ordinary  speech.  Whether  the  'great  day'  so  emphatically 
mentioned  here  was  this  eighth  day  or  the  seventh  day  of  the  feast  is 
a  point  which  has  been  much  discussed,  and  on  which  we  cannot 
arrive  at  certainty.  On  the  whole  it  is  most  probable  that  the  eighth 
day  is  referred  to,  the  day  of  holy  rest,  in  which  the  feasts  seemed  to 
reach  their  culmination,  and  which  retained  the  sacred  associations 
of  the  festival  just  past,  though  the  marks  of  special  rejoicing  had 
come  to  an  end.  This  last  day  He,  to  whom  all  the  festivals  of  Israel 
pointed,  chose  for  the  proclamation,  which  showed  the  joy  and  hope 
of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  fulfilled  in  Himself. — Jesus  stood  and 
cried,  saying,  If  any  one  thirst,  let  him  come  unto  me  and 
drink.  The  words  'stood  and  cried'  bring  into  relief  the  solemn 
earnestness  of  this  declaration,  which  completed  and  perfected  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  at  this  feast.  The  occasion  was  given  (if  we  are 
right  in  regarding  the  eighth  as  'the  great  day'),  not  by  the  cere- 
mony observed,  but  by  the  blank  left  through  the  cessation  of  the 
familiar  custom.  The  water  had  been  poured  upon  the  altar  for  seven 
days,  reminding  of  past  miracles  of  God's  mercy  and  promises  of  yet 
richer  grace  ;  hopes  had  been  raised,  but  not  yet  satisfied.  When  the 
ceremonies  had  reached  their  close,  Jesus  'stood  and  cried'  to  the 
multitudes  that  what  they  had  hitherto  looked  for  in  vain  they  shall 
receive  in  Him.  As  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth  He  read  from  the 
book  of  Isaiah,  and  declared  that  the  Scripture  was  that  day  fulfilled 
in  their  ears,  so  here  He  takes  up  familiar  words  of  the  same  prophet 
(Isa.  55:   1),  calling  every  one  that  thirsteth  to  come  unto  Him. 

Ver.  38.  He  that  believeth  in  me,  as  the  scripture  said, 
out  of  his  belly  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.  The  words 
of  ver.  37  remind  us  of  the  people  who  drank  of  the  spiritual  rock 


188  JOHN  VII.  [7:  39. 

me,  as  the  scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his  belly*  shall 

39  flow  rivers  of  living  water.     But  this  spake  he  of  the 

Spirit,  which  they  that  believed  on  him  were  to  re- 

*  For  "out  of  his  belly  "  read  "  from  within  him"  (with  marg.  Gr.  out  oflmbelly) 
— Am.  Com. 

that  followed  them  (1  Cor.  10:  4),  the  miracle  commemorated  in  the 
pouring  of  the  water  from  Siloam ;  the  last  words  ('shall  flow  rivers') 
resemble  more  the  promise  of  Isa.  12:  3,  amplified  in  all  its  parts. 
Theie  is  nothing  incongruous  in  this  union  of  promises;  Isa.  44:  3 
includes  both:  'I  will  pour  water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods 
upon  the  dry  ground.'  This  is  not  the  first  time  that  we  have  found 
'coming  to  Jesus'  and  'believing  in  Him'  thus  brought  together;  see 
the  note  on  chap.  6  :  35.  Out  of  the  heart  of  him  that  thus  cometh, 
thus  believeth  in  Jesus,  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water.  Not  only 
shall  he  receive  what  his  thirst  demands  and  be  satisfied,  but  he  him- 
self shall  become  the  source  of  a  stream — nay,  rivers — of  living  waters. 
The  water  shall  bring  life  to  him ;  the  water  flowing  out  of  his  heart 
shall  bring  life  wherever  it  comes.  All  this  is  the  gift  of  Jesus,  who 
is  set  forth  as  the  One  Source  of  the  water  of  Life.  But  what  is 
meant  by  'as  the  Scripture  said?'  Many  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment contain  similar  imagery;  but  one  only  appears  real'y  to  accord 
with  the  figure  of  this  verse,  viz.  the  vision  of  Ezek.  47.  The  prophet 
saw  a  stream  of  living  water  issuing  from  the  temple,  and  expanding 
into  a  river  whose  waters  brought  life  wherever  they  flowed.  The 
temple  prefigured  Christ  (chap.  2:  21)  ;  the  water  of  life  is  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  pre-eminently  Christ's  gift  (chap.  4:  14).  The  Lord 
Himself  received  into  the  believer's  heart  brings  the  gift  of  the  living 
water ;  and  from  Him,  thus  abiding  in  the  heart,  flows  the  river  of 
the  water  of  life. 

Ver,  39.  And  this  spake  he  concerning  the  Spirit,  -wrhich 
they  that  believed  in  him  -were  to  receive :  for  the  Spirit 
•was  not  yet  (given) ;  because  that  Jesus  Tvas  not  yet  glori- 
fied. The  word  is  a  promise  still,  speaking  of  a  future  gift  ('were  to 
receive').  The  verse  before  us  is  one  which  it  is  impossible  to  express 
in  English  without  a  paraphrase.  In  the  first  clause  we  find  '  the 
Spirit;'  but  in  the  second  the  article  is  absent,  and  the  words  literally 
mean  '  for  spirit  was  not  yet' — the  word  'spirit'  meaning,  not  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  Person,  but  a  bestowal  or  reception  of  His  influence 
and  power.  Only  when  Jesus  was  glorified,  that  is,  only  when  He 
had  died,  had  risen,  had  ascended  on  high,  had  been  invested  with 
the  glory  which  was  His  own  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  would 
man  receive  that  spiritual  power  which  is  the  condition  of  all  spiritual 
life.  When  Jesus  Himself,  the  God-man,  is  perfected,  then,  and  not 
till  then,  does  He  receive  power  to  bestow  the  Holy  Spirit  on  man- 
kind. This  mysterious  subject  mainly  belongs,  however,  to  later 
/chapters   of  this   Gospel    (see  especially   chap.  16:  7).  —  Here   our 


7:40-45.]  JOHN  VII.  189 

ceive ;  ^  for  the   Spirit   was   not   yet  given ;  because 

40  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified.  Home  of  the  multitude 
therefore,  when  they  heard  these  words,  said,  This  is 

41  of  a  truth  the  prophet.  Others  said,  This  is  the 
Christ.     But  some  said,  What,  doth  the  Christ  come 

42  out  of  Galilee  ?  Hath  not  the  scripture  said  that  the 
Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  David,  and  from  Bethle- 

43  hem,  the  village  where  David  was?     So  there  arose  a 

44  division  in  the  multitude  because  of  him.  And  some 
of  them  would  have  taken  him;  but  no  man  laid 
hands  on  him. 

45  The  officers  therefore  came  to  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees ;    and  they  said  unto  them.  Why  did 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read /or  the  Holy  Spiril  vcas  not  yet  given. 

Lord's  revelation  of  Himself  as  the  fulfilment  of  the  Old  Testament 
culminates.  The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  the  last  great  feast  of  the 
year.  It  was  also  the  feast  which  raised  sacred  rejoicing  to  its  high- 
est point ;  which  shadowed  forth  the  full  bestowal  of  Messianic  bless- 
ings (comp.  Zech.  14  :  16) ;  and  which  spoke  most  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  supreme  gift  of  Jesus  to  His  people.  With  its  fulfilment  all  the 
brightest  anticipations  of  ancient  prophecy  are  realized.  The  effect 
of  this  revelation  of  Jesus  by  Himself  is  now  traced. 

Ver.  40.  Some  of  the  multitude  therefore,  v^hen  they 
heard  these  vrords,  said,  Of  a  truth  this  is  the  prophet. 
On  'the  prophet,'  and  the  distinction  between  this  appellation  and 
'the  Christ,'  see  the  note  on  chap.  1  :  21. 

Vers.  41,  42.  Others  said.  This  is  the  Christ.  Some  said, 
"What,  doth  the  Christ  come  out  of  Galilee  ?  Hath  not  the 
scripture  said,  That  the  Christ  cometh  of  the  seed  of  David, 
and  from  Bethlehem,  the  village  vrhere  David  -was  ?  See 
Matt.  2:  6.  This  explanation  of  the  prophecy  of  Micah  (chap.  5:  2) 
is  found  in  the  Targum,  and  seems  to  have  been  commonly  received  ' 
by  the  Jews. 

Vers.  48,  44.  There  arose  therefore  a  division  among  the 
multitude  because  of  him.  And  some  of  them  -would  have 
seized  him  ;  but  no  man  laid  hands  on  him.  Comp.  ver.  30. 
Here,  as  there,  the  result  of  the  division  of  opinion  is  a  more  er.ger 
attempt  to  apprehend  Him  about  whom  the  dispute  has  arisen.  The 
last  words  of  ver.  30  may  be  again  supplied  in  thought :  '  his  hour 
was  not  5'et  come.' 

Ver.  45.  The  officers  therefore  came  to  the  chief  priests 
and  Pharisees  ;  and  they  said  unto  them.  Why  have  ye  not 
brought  him  ?     The  sending  of  the  officers  is  mentioned  in  ver.  32. 


190  JOHN  VII.  [7:  4G-51. 

46  ye    not   bring  him  ?     The  officers   answered,  Never 

47  man   so  spake.     The    Pharisees    therefore  answered 

48  them,   Are   ye  also  led   astray?     Hath  any  of   the 

49  rulers  believed  on   him,  or  of  the  Pharisees  ?     But 
this   multitude  which   knoweth   not   the  law  are  ac- 

50  cursed.     Nicodemus  saith   unto   them  (he  that  came 

51  to  him  before,  being  one  of  them).   Doth    our   law 
judge  a  man,  except  it  first   hear  from  himself  and 

From  ver.  37  we  may  gather  that  they  had  been  lingering  near  Him 
for  a  day  or  more  :  His  last  words  seem  to  have  deprived  them  of  all 
power  to  lay  hands  on  Him,  There  is  a  minute  diiference  between  the 
senders  as  described  in  ver  32  ('  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees') 
and  here,  where  the  second  article  is  dropped.  The  slight  change 
serves  to  emphasize  the  union  of  the  two  elements  (so  to  speak)  into 
one  for  the  purpose  in  hand,  but  is  not  sufficient  to  suggest  that  here,  re- 
ference is  made  to  the  Sanhedrin  as  a  body.  It  does  not  appear  that 
there  is  formal  action  of  the  Sanhedrin  earlier  than  the  record  in 
chap.  11 :  47. 

Ver.  46.  The  officers  ans-wered,  Never  did  a  man  so  speak. 
A  new  testimony  to  Jesus,  borne  by  men  who,  awed  by  the  majesty  of 
His  words,  instead  of  attempting  a  deed  of  violence,  declare  to  their 
very  masters  that  He  is  more  than  man. 

Vers.  47,  48,  49.  The  Pharisees  therefore  answered  them, 
Have  ye  also  been  led  astray  ?  Hath  any  one  of  the  rulers 
believed  in  him,  or  of  the  Pharisees  ?  But  this  multitude 
■which  understandeth  not  the  law  are  accursed.  In  such  a 
matter  as  the  acceptance  of  any  man  as  Messiah,  the  judgment  of  the 
rulers  (members  of  the  Sanhedrin)  must  surely  be  decisive;  but  what 
ruler  or  who  of  the  Pharisees  has  sanctioned  the  claims  of  Jesus  ?  The 
foolish  multitude  may  have  done  so,  in  this  showing  an  ignorance 
which,  in  the  mind  of  l-he  Pharisees,  deserves  and  brings  with  it  a 
curse. — Of  such  contemptuous  treatment  of  the  common  people,  as 
distinguished  from  '  the  disciples  of  the  wise,'  many  examples  may  be 
produced  from  the  sayings  of  Jewish  Rabbins. 

Vers.  50,  51.  Nicodemus  saith  unto  them  (he  that  came 
to  him  before  being  one  of  them),  Doth  our  law  judge  a 
man,  except  it  have  first  heard  from  himself,  and  learned 
what  he  doeth  ?  Twice  already  in  this  section  have  we  read  of  the 
restraint  placed  on  the  enemies  of  Jesus.  Those  amongst  the  multi- 
tude who  were  ill  affected  towards  Him  were  kept  back  from  doing 
Him  harm  (ver.  44)  ;  the  officers  likewise  were  restrained  (ver.  46) ; 
now  the  Sanhedrists  themselves  are  to  be  foiled,  and  this  through  one  of 
themselves.  Nicodemus  (3:1)  has  so  far  overcome  his  fear  that  he  de- 
fends Jesus  against  the  glaring  injustice  of  his  fellow-rulers,  undeterred 
by  the  expression  of  their  scorn  just  uttered.  He  appeals  to  the  law,  all 


7 :  52—8 :  12.]  JOHN  YII— VIII.  101 

52  know  what  he  doeth  ?  They  answered  and  said  unto 
him,  Art  thou  also  of  Galilee  ?  Search,  and  ^see  that 
out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no  prophet. 

Chapter  8  :  12-59. 
Jesus  the  Son  of  the  Father,  the  Giver  of  Sonship,  and, 
therewith,  of  Light. 

12  Again  therefore  Jesus  spake  unto  them,  saying,  I 
am  the  light  of  the  world :  he  that  followeth  me  shall 

1  Or,  see  :  for  out  of  Galilee,  &c. 

knowledge  of  which  they  have  proudly  arrogated  to  themselves,  and 
shows  that  of  this  very  law  they  are  themselves  transgressors. 

Ver.  52.  They  ansTvered  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  also 
of  Galilee  ?  Search  and  see  that  out  of  Galilee  ariseth 
no  prophet.  No  answer  to  the  argument  was  possible  :  they  can  but 
turn  on  Nicodemus  himself.  They  assume  that  no  one  but  a  Galilean 
can  take  the  side  of  Jesus.  The  last  words  are  difl&cult,  because  at 
least  one  of  the  ancient  prophets  (Jonah)  was  of  Galilee.  But  the 
words  do  not  seem  to  be  intended  to  include  all  the  past,  so  much  as 
to  express  what  Jews  held  to  be,  and  to  have  long  been,  a  stated  rule  of 
Divine  Providence  :  in  their  scorn  of  Galilee,  and  their  arrogant  as- 
sumption of  complete  knowledge  of  '  the  law,'  they  regard  it  as  im- 
possible that  out  of  that  land  any  prophet  should  arise  ;  least  of  all 
can  it  be  the  birth-place  of  the  Messiah. 

For  remarks  on  the  following  verses,  extending  from  7  :  53  to  8  :  11, 
see  the  close  of  this  Commentary. 

Jesus  the  Son  of  the  Father,  the  Giver  of  Sonship  and,  therewith, 
of  Light,  vers.  12-59. 

Contents.  The  feast  of  Tabemncles  is  closed,  and  with  it  the  great  illumination  of 
the  temple-courts,  of  which  the  Jews  were  wont  to  boast  in  lofty  terms.  Starting 
from  this,  and  from  the  fact  that  He  is  the  true  light  of  the  world,  Jesus  reveals  more 
clearly  than  He  has  yet  done  what  He  Himself  is,  and  by  contrast  what  His  opponents 
are.  Everything  that  He  utters  assumes  its  sharpest,  most  peremptory-,  most  decisive 
tone.  The  rage  of  His  adversaries  is  roused  to  its  highest  intensity.  The  darkness 
becomes  thickest,  while  the  light  shines  in  the  midst  of  it  with  its  greatest  bright- 
ness. Nothing  more  can  be  done  to  change  the  darkness  into  light;  henceforward 
the  children  of  light  can  only  be  withdrawn  from  it.  At  the  close  of  the  chapter 
Jesus  goes  out  of  the  temple,  leaving  the  darkness  to  itself,  but  not  overcome  by  it. 
The  subordinate  parts  are — (1)  vers.  12-20 ;  (2)  vers.  21-30;  (3)  vers.  31-50. 

Ver.  12.  Again  therefore  Jesus  spake  unto  them,  say- 
ing, I  am  the  light  of  the  world.  The  last  thirteen  verses  (chap. 
7  :  48-52)  have  been  occupied  with  an  account  of  the  impression  made 


192  JOHN  VIII.  [§:  13. 

not  walk  in  the  darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of 

13  life.     The  Pharisees  therefore  said  unto  him,  Thou 

bearest  witness  of  thyself;    thy  witness  is  not  true. 

by  our  Lord's  woi'ds  of  promise  (chap.  7  :  37,  38).  This  verse  really 
follows  chap.  7  :  38,  containing  a  second  manifestation  of  Jesus,  in  a 
form  and  manner  still  connected  Tvith  the  feast  which  had  just  ended. 
As  the  pouring  out  of  the  water  had  furnished  occasion  for  the  prom- 
ise of  the  living  water,  so  the  imagery  of  this  verse  w\as  probably  sug- 
gested by  the  illumination  of  the  temple-courts  on  the  evenings  of  the 
festival.  This  illumination  proceeded  from  four  great  candelabra 
erected  in  the  court  of  the  women,  and  of  its  brilliancy  the  Kabbins 
speak  in  the  highest  strains.  It  formed  indeed  so  marked  a  feature 
of  the  week's  rejoicings,  that  no  one  can  be  surprised  to  find  a  refer- 
ence to  it  in  our  Lord's  words.  Like  the  water  poured  on  the  altar, 
the  light  may  well  have  had  a  twofold  symbolism,  commemorating  the 
mighty  guidance  of  Israel  by  the  pillar  of  fire,  and  also  prefiguring 
the  light  Avhich  was  to  spring  up  in  the  times  of  the  Messiah  (Isa.  9  : 
2;  42:  6  ;  etc.).  What  the  pillar  of  fire  had  been  to  Israel  in  the 
wilderness,  that  would  Messiah  be  to  His  people  in  the  latter  days. 
— He  that  followeth  me  shall  in  no  -wise  -walk  in  the  dark- 
ness, but  shall  have  the  light  of  life.  The  words  '  he  that  fol- 
loweth me  '  are  in  all  probability  closely  connected  with  the  figure  of 
the  first  clause  of  the  verse.  Around  is  'the  darkness'  of  night:' 
only  where  the  pillar  of  fire  moves  light  shines  on  all  that  follow  its 
course, — on  all,  not  on  Israel  only,  for  Jesus  is  '  the  light  of  the  world.' 
The  language  of  both  promises  is  free  from  every  limitation  save  that 
"which  is  expressed  in  '  coming  to'  Him,  '  believing'  in  Him  (chap.  7  : 
37,  38),  and  'following'  Him.  The  special  condition  mentioned  in 
this  verse  (when  we  pass  from  the  associations  of  the  original  figure 
to  the  practical  application  of  the  words)  brings  out  the  idea  of  disci- 
pleship  and  imitation.  This  includes  '  coming  '  and  '  believing.'  No 
true  disciple  shall  walk  in  the  darkness,  but  shall  have  as  his  own  in- 
ward possession  (comp.  chap.  7:  38)  the  light  of  life, — the  light 
which  life  gives.  Living  in  Christ,  he  shall  have  the  light  of  Christ 
(see  chap.  1  :  4).  Darkness  bears  with  it  the  ideas  of  ignorance,  dan- 
ger, and  sin  :  light  implies  knowledge,  guidance,  safety,  and  holy 
purity  (chap.  12  :  35  ;   1  Thess.  5:  4;   1  John  1  :  5.) 

Ver.  13.  The  Pharisees  therefore  said  unto  him,  Thou 
bearest  -witness  concerning  thyself;  thy -witness  is  not 
true.  We  have  here  a  reminiscence  of  Christ's  own  words  (chap.  6  : 
31),  of  which  His  enemies  now  take  hold,  that  they  may  turn  them 
against  Himself.  Since  the  discourse  of  chap.  5,  the  Pharisees  of 
Jerusalem  have  never  possessed  so  favorable  an  opportunity  of  thus 
seeking  to  repel  the  claims  which  .Jesus  asserts.  As  used  by  our  Lord 
(in  chap  5),  the  words  signify  that,  if  His  testimony  concerning  Him- 
self stood  alone,  not  only  would  it  (according  to  all  laws  of  evidence) 
be  invalid,  but  it  would  be  untrue, — as  the  very  thought  of  such  un- 


8:  14,  15.]  JOHN  VIII.  193 

14  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  them,  Even  if  I  bear 
witness  of  myself,  my  Avitness  is  true ;  for  I  know 
whence  I  came,  and  whither   I    go  ;     but  ye  know 

15  not  whence  I  came,  orwhither  Igo.  Ye  judge  after  the 

supported  witness  would  conflict  with  the  fundamental  truth  of  chap. 
6  :  19.  Here  the  words,  as  applied  by  His  foes,  are  intended  to  have 
the  same  meaning  :  His  solitary  testimony  has  no  validity,  and,  by 
His  own  confession,  is  untrue. 

Ver.  14.  Jesus  ansv^ered  and  said  unto  them,  Even  if  I 
bear  -witness  concerning  myself,  my  -witness  is  true  :  be- 
cause I  know -whence  I  came,  and  -whither  I  go;  but  ye 
kno-w  not  -whence  I  come,  or  -whither  I  go.  A  little  later 
(ver.  17j,  Jesus  gives  an  answer  similar  to  the  purport  of  His  words 
in  chap.  5.  His  Father  beareth  witness  of  Him,  and  His  Father's  tes- 
timony is  ever  present.  But  here  He  rebukes  their  judgment  of  Him. 
In  a  sense  (ver.  17),  their  requirement  of  other  testimony  is  valid; 
but  first  He  must  reject  their  application  to  Him  of  a  principle  of  judg- 
ment which  is  valid  in  regard  to  men  like  themselves.  Amongst  men 
of  like  nature — those  who  are  but  men — such  judgment  is  true  :  when 
applied  to  Jesus  it  fails.  Men  who  know  but  in  part  may  be  self-de- 
ceivers, even  if  they  are  true  men  ;  hence  their  word  needs  support. 
He  who  knows  with  unerring  certainty  that  He  comes  from  the  Father 
and  is  going  to  the  Father  may  bear  witness  of  Himself,  and  His  testi- 
mony is  valid  and  true.  He  who  thus  comes  from  God  cannot  but 
speak  with  a  self-evidencing  power, — self-evidencing  to  all  who  are 
willing  to  see  and  hear.  This  willingness  the  Pharisees  had  not,  and 
hence  He  adds,  'Ye  know  not  whence  I  come,  or  whither  I  go.'  The 
change  from  '  I  came'  to  '  I  come'  is  remarkable,  but  is  easily  ex- 
plained. The  past  fact  ('I  came')  is  not  one  which  the  Pharisees 
could  know,  except  by  inference :  His  present  mission  from  the 
Father  ('  I  come ' )  should  have  been  discerned  by  all  who  saw  His 
works  and  heard  His  words ;  and  every  one  who  recognised  that  He 
Cometh  from  the  Father  must  understand  His  meaning  when  He  says 
*  I  go '  to  Him  that  sent  me.     On  '  I  come '  comp.  7  :  28. 

Ver.  15.  Ye  judge  after  the  flesh.  They  had  judged  Him  by 
mere  outward  appearance,  and  according  to  their  own  merely  human 
thoughts  and  wishes.  Having  formed  for  themselves  without  patient 
study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  thus  without  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  their  conception  of  Messiah  and  of  His  kingdom,  they  rejected 
Jesus  because  He  did  not  answer  their  expectation.  But  for  this,  the 
Divine  witness  in  Him  would  have  reached  their  hearts.  I  judge  no 
one.  They  judged  according  to  their  own  nature, — standing  alone, 
without  the  guidance  of  the  Father  along  with  them  in  judging,  and 
thus  not  judging  'righteous  judgment'  (7:  24).  Jesus  judgeth  no 
man.  The  fifth  chapter  has  prepared  us  for  such  words  as  these. 
Here,  as  there,  they  <k)  not  exclude  all  judgment,  but  all  sule  judg- 
lo 


194  JOHN  VIII.  [8:  16-18. 

16  flesh ;    I  judge   no  man.     Yea,  and  if  I  judge,  my 
judgement  is  true ;  for  I  am  not  alone,  but  I  and  the 

17  Father  that  sent  me.     Yea  and  in  your  law  it  is  writ- 

18  ten,  that   the   witness  of  two  men  is  true.     I  am  he 
that  beareth  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father  that 

ment  (see  ver,  16):  it  is  not  He  that  judgeth,  but  rather  the  Father 
who  judgeth  in  Him.  Chap.  5  :  22  and  this  verse  are  not  discordant : 
between  the  Father,  the  ultimate  source  of  judgment,  and  those  who 
are  judged  is  the  Son,  to  whom  the  Father  hath  given  authority  to  do 
judgment,  but  who  doeth  nothing  save  in  and  with  the  Father.  The 
'I'  is  thus  emphatic,  equivalent  to  *I  by  myself '  or  'I  without  the 
Father.' 

Ver.  16.  But  even  if  I  judge,  my  judgment  is  true:  be- 
cause I  am  not  alone,  but  I  and  the  Father  that  sent  me. 
Because  in  no  action  is  He  alone,  even  if  He  judges  His  judgment  is 
true  ;  it  is  a  real  judgment,  a  judgment  corresponding,  not  to  outward 
appearance,  but  to  the  eternal  reality  of  things,  because  according  to 
the  Father's  will.  The  assertion  of  this  verse,  that  the  Father  is  ever 
with  Him,  corresponds  to  the  words,  *1  know  whence  I  came,'  in  ver. 
14:  the  link  which  binds  together  all  these  verses  is  His  consta.nt  and 
perfect  knowledge  that  the  Father  is  with  Him  and  in  Him.  In  this 
lies  the  validity  of  His  witness :  in  this  is  involved  the  condemnation 
of  His  foes. 

Ver.  17.  But  in  your  own  law  also  it  is  written  that  the 
w^itness  of  tw^o  men  is  true.  In  the  very  law  which  they  mag- 
nified, on  which  they  take  their  stand,  as  they  accuse  Him  of  break- 
ing the  law,  and  declare  that  all  who  follow  him  are  ignorant  of  the 
law  (chap.  7  :  49,  etc.),  this  principle  is  laid  down  (Deut.  17  :  6  ;  19: 
15).  An  emphasis  is  made  to  rest  on  'men 'to  prepare  for  the  next 
verse.  The  words  'your  own  law'  at  once  magnify  the  law  and  are 
an  argumentum  ad  hominem.  His  purpose  is  to  show  that  the  principle 
upon  which  He  proceeded  was  founded  in  the  law  which  they  them- 
selves so  highly  honored,  and  the  rules  of  which  they  were  not  en- 
titled to  neglect. 

V^r.  18.  I  am  he  that  beareth  witness  concerning  my- 
self, and  the  Father  that  sent  me  beareth  w^itness  concern- 
ing me.  In  all  the  Son's  witness  concerning  Himself,  it  is  the 
Father  that  beareth  witness  concerning  Him.  This  is  the  teaching  of 
chap.  5,  and  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  witness  may  with  equal  truth  be 
spoken  of  as  that  of  Two,  or  as  that  borne  by  One  (the  Father).  In 
thus  speaking  to  His  enemies  of  a  twofold  witness.  He  may  mean  either 
(1)  that  they  should  themselves  have  discerned  in  Kim,  over  and  above 
that  which  in  a  human  prophet  they  would  have  accepted  as  '  witness,' 
a  higher  presence  which  could  only  be  Divine  ;  or  (2)  that  in  the  wit- 
ness which  He  had  borne  they  had  dreamed  of  unsupported  words 
only  because  they  could  not  attain  to  that  perfect  knowledge  which 


8 :  19-21.]  JOHN  VIII.  ^  195 

19  sent  me  beareth  witness  of  me.  They  said  there- 
fore unto  him,  Where  is  thy  Father  ?  Jesus  an- 
swered, Ye  know  neither  me,  nor  my  Father ;  if  ye 

20  kneAv  me,  ye  would  know  my  Father  also.  These 
words  spake  he  in  the  treasury,  as  he  taught  in  the 
temple :  and  no  man  took  him  :  because  his  hour 
was  not  yet  come. 

21  He  said  therefore  again  unto  them,  I  go  away,  and 
ye  shall  seek  me,  and    shall  die  in  your  sin  :  whither 

He  alone  possessed.  They  heard  and  saw  one  witness  only  ;  to  His 
consciousness  there  were  two.  The  first  of  these  two  views  is  by 
much  the  more  probable.  Jesus  appeals  to  two  facts  which  they  ouffht 
to  have  known,  that  He  was  the  expression  of  the  Father,  and  that 
what  He  was  the  Father  was.  These  two  were  wholly  separate  and 
independent  things,  although  the  validity  of  each  depended  upon  that 
consciousness  of  the  Divine  in  them  which  they  had  silenced. 

Ver.  19.  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Where  is  thy 
Father  ?  If  He  is  to  add  His  witness  to  Thine,  Let  him  appear  and 
bear  His  testimony.  The  words  are  those  of  men  who  will  not  seek 
to  enter  into  the  meaning  of  the  Speaker.  As  they  judge  men  *  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,'  they  will  go  no  farther  than  the  literal  import  of 
the  words.  But  after  what  they  have  heard  and  seen  in  Jesus,  such 
action  cannot  consist  with  sincerity  ;  it  is  not  only  to  enemies  but  to 
hypocrites  that  He  speaks.—  Jesus  ans-wered,  Ye  know  neither 
me,  nor  my  Father :  If  ye  knew  me,  ye  would  know  my 
Father  also.  They  professed  not  to  know  who  is  His  Father.  In 
truth  they  were  without  any  real  knowledge,  not  of  the  Father  only, 
but  of  Jesus  Himself.  Had  they,  through  receiving  and  believing  His 
words,  attained  such  knowledge  of  Him,  they  would  have  attained  in 
Him  the  revelation  of  the  Father  also. 

Ver.  20.  These  words  spake  he  in  the  treasury,  teaching 
in  the  temple-courts  :  and  no  man  seized  him,  because  his 
hour  was  not  yet  come.  Again  His  adversaries  were  overawed  : 
though  lie  was  teaching  within  the  precincts  of  the  temple,  in  the 
very  place  of  their  power,  no  one  laid  hands  on  Him.  The  Treasury 
was  in  the  court  of  the  women,  the  very  place  in  which  the  rejoicings 
we  have  described  (see  chap.  7  :  37)  took  place. 

Ver.  21.  He  said  therefore  again  unto  them,  I  go,  and  ye 
shall  seek  me,  and  in  your  sin  ye  shall  die  :  whither  I  go,  ye 
cannot  come.  The  conflict  of  Jesus  with  His  opponents  has  now 
passed  into  a  higher  stage.  It  is  no  longer  with  the  Pharisees  merely 
(ver.  13),  but  with  the  Jews  (ver.  22),  The  witness,  too,  which  Jesus 
now  bears  regarding  Himself  has  reference  to  the  last  things,  both  for 
Himself  and  for  them.  It  is  vain  however  to  inquire  when  the  discourse 
was  thus  continued :  the  bond  is  one  rather  of  thought  than  of  date. 


196  JOHN  VIII.  [8 :  22-24. 


22  I  go,  ye  cannot   come.       The  Jews  therefore 
Will  he  kill   himself,  that  he  saitli,  Whither  I  go,  ye 

23  cannot  come?   And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye  are   from 
beneath  ;  I  am  from  above  :    ye  are  of  this  world  ;  I 

24  am  not  of  this   W'Orld.      I   said  therefore  unto  you, 
that  ye  shall  die  in   your  sins:  for  except  ye  believe 

The  main  object  of  these  words  is  judgment:  hence  Jesus  does  not 
linger  on  the  thought  of  His  own  departure,  but  on  that'of  the  fate 
awaiting  them.  The  time  will  come  when  they  will  seek  Him,  but  in 
vain.  He  is  not  speaking  of  the  seeking  of  faith  or  of  repentance, 
but  (as  before  in  chap.  7 :  34)  of  the  awakening  (too  late)  to  need  and 
danger, — an  awakening  not  accompanied  by  the  forsaking  of  sin,  for 
He  adds,  '  in  your  sin'  (i.  e.  your  state  of  sin,  comp.  ver.  24)  'ye  shall 
die.' 

Ver.  22.  The  Jews  therefore  said,  "Will  he  kill  himself  ? 
because  he  saith,  Whither  I  go  ye  cannot  come.  Before 
(chap.  7 :  35)  their  answer  had  been.  Will  He  go  to  Gentiles  ? 
The  change  here  shows  how  much  farther  the  conflict  has  advanced. 
Will  He  go  to  the  realms  of  the  dead,  they  ask, — to  that  darkest  and 
most  dreadful  region  reserved  for  those  who  take  their  own  life,  a  re- 
gion where  true  Israelites  cannot  come  ?  Their  ignorance  of  themselves 
is  as  profound  as  their  ignorance  of  Jesus.  Jesus  had  made  His 
meaning  plain  (chap.  7  :  33),  but  they  wilfully  blind  themselves. 
Hence  only  one  answer  is  possible  now. 

Vers.  23,  24,  And  he  said  unto  them,  Ye  are  from  be- 
neath; I  am  from  above:  ye  are  of  this  -world;  I  am  not 
of  this  -world.  I  said  therefore  unto  you,  that  ye  shall  die 
in  your  sins ;  for  if  ye  shall  not  believe  that  I  am,  ye  shall 
die  in  yoursins.  The  second  of  these  verses  fixes  the  meaning  of 
the  first.  The  words,  '  I  said  that  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins,'  are  so 
connected  both  with  what  precedes  (by  means  of  'therefore')  and 
with  what  follows  (by  means  of  'for'),  that  the  ground  of  this  sen- 
tence of  death  is  brought  under  our  notice  by  each  of  these  particles, 
— it  is  to  be  found  in  the  unbelief  of  which  the  following  clause  speaks, 
and  in  the  fact  stated  in  the  preceding  verse.  As  then  this  ground  of 
condemnation  is  distinctly  moral  (ver.  24),  the  expressions  in  ver.  23 
must  also  have  a  moral  and  not  a  fatalistic  meaning.  The  condemna- 
tion results  from  something  in  the  men  themselves,  not  from  any  orig- 
inal necessity  ;  should  they  believe,  no  longer  would  Jesus  say  to 
them.  Ye  are  from  beneath.  The  origin  of  their  spirit  and  action, 
dominated  by  unbelief,  is  to  be  sought,  not  above,  but  beneath, — not 
in  heaven,  but  in  earth :  nay  rather  (for  the  thought  distinctly  ex- 
pressed in  ver.  44  is  implicitly  present  here  also),  whereas  He  whom 
they  are  in  thought  consigning  to  the  lowest  depths  of  woe  and  pun- 
ishment is  of  God,  they  are  of  the  devil.  His  words  grow  more  and 
more  distinct  in  their  awful  import,  and  yet  they  are  words  of  mercy : 


8:  25.]  JOHN  VIII.  197 

25  that  ^I  am  he,'^  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins.     They  said 
therefore  unto  him,  AVho  art  thou  ?     Jesus  said  unto 

1  Or,  I  am. 

*  "  I  am  he  "  omit  marg.  '  (and  the  corresponding  portion  of  marg.  *).    So  in  13 : 
19. — Am.  Coin. 

for  the  meaning  is  not,  Except  ye  are  noio  believers,  the  sentence  is 
passed, — but,  Except  ye  shall  believe  (most  literally  '  shall  have  be- 
lieved') :  even  now  they  may  receive  Him,  and  the  sentence  will  have 
no  existence  for  them. — But  the  most  striking  point  in  this  verse  is 
the  mode  in  which  our  Lord  expresses  the  object  of  belief, — '  Except 
ye  shall  believe  that  /  am.''  Something  apparently  like  this  has  oc- 
curred before  in  chap.  4 :  26,  but  the  two  cases  are  really  widely  dif- 
ferent. There  the  word  '  Messiah'  has  just  been  spoken,  and  the 
answer,  '  It  is  I,'  is  perfectly  plain  in  its  meaning.  Here  there  is  no 
such  word  in  the  context ;  and  to  assume  an  ellipsis,  and  tlien  supply 
the  very  word  on  which  all  the  emphasis  muat  rest,  is  a  dangerous  step  : 
to  act  thus  is  not  to  bring  out  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  but  to  bring 
our  own  meaning  into  it.  Besides,  as  we  have  already  seen,  our  Lord 
is  wont  elsewhere  to  use  the  expression  '  1  am '  in  a  very  emphatic 
sense  (see  chap.  7:  34,  etc.),  with  distinct  reference  to  that  continu- 
ous, unchanging  existence  which  only  He  who  is  Divine  can  claim. 
The  most  remarkable  example  of  these  exalted  words  is  found  in  the 
58th  verse  of  this  chapter  (comp.  also  ver.  28).  Without  forestalling 
this,  however,  we  may  safely  say  that  it  is  of  His  Divine  Being  that 
Jesus  here  speaks.  The  thought  of  existence  is  clearly  present  in  the 
verse.  '  Ye  shall  die,'  He  says,  '  unless  ye  shall  have  been  brought  to 
see  in  me — not  what  the  impious  words  of  ver.  22  imply,  but — One 
who  is, — who,  belonging  to  the  realms  above,  possesses  life — who,  be- 
ing of  God,  has  life  as  His  own  and  as  His  own  gift.'  So  understood, 
our  Lord's  words  speak  of  belief,  not  directly  in  His  ^Nlessiahship,  but 
in  that  other  nature  of  His,  that  Divine  nature,  on  His  possession  of 
which  He  makes  all  His  other  claims  to  rest. 

Ver.  25.  They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Who  art  thou  ? 
Had  they  been  patient,  willing  listeners,  they  would  have  seen  His 
meaning  ;  but  now  He  seems  to  them  to  have  left  out  the  one  essen- 
tial word,  in  thus  saying :  '  Except  ye  shall  believe  that  I  am.'  What 
is  that  word  ?  *  Who  art  thou  ^'  The  tone  of  the  preceding  words 
make  it  certain  that  the  question  is  one  of  impatience  and  scorn,  not 
of  a  spirit  eager  and  ready  to  learn.  This  is  a  point  of  importance, 
as  throwing  light  on  our  Lord's  reply.  — Jesus  said  unto  them, 
Ho-w  is  it  that  I  even  speak  to  you  at  all  ?  The  true  nature 
and  meaning  of  this  reply  are  points  on  which  the  greatest  difference 
of  opinion  has  existed,  and  still  exists.  The  question  is  one  of 
translation,  not  interpretation  merely  ;  and  a  discussion  on  a  mat- 
ter of  Greek  philology  would  be  out  of  place  here.  The  first  words 
of  the  sentence  are  'The  beginning;'  and  many  have  endeavored 
to  retain  these  words  in  translation,  but  in  very  different  ways.    Some 


198  JOHN  VIII.  [8 :  26. 

them,  ^Even  that  which  I  have  also  spoken  unto  you 

26  from  the  beginning.*     I  have  many  things  to  speak 

and  to  judge  concerning  you :  howbeit  he  that  sent 

me  is  true ;  and  the  things  which  I  heard  from  him, 

1  Or,  How  is  it  that  I  even  speak  to  you  at  all  f 

*  Substitute  for  the  present  marg.  2  Or,  Altogether  that  which  I  also  speak  unto 
you, — Am.  Com. 

have  taken  '  The  beginning '  as  a  name  applied  by  our  Lord  to  Him- 
self; others  understand  the  words  adverbially,  as  meaning  'in  the 
beginning,'  '  from  the  very  first,'  '  before  all  things.  But  none  of 
these  explanations  can  be  obtained  without  doing  violence  to  the 
Greek;  and  we  are  therefore  bound  to  consider  them  all  untenable. 
One  line  of  translation  only  seems  to  be  allowed  by  the  Greek — that 
which  takes  the  words  as  a  question  (or  exclamation),  and  gives  to 
the  first  words  ('the  beginning')  a  meaning  which  in  such  sentences 
they  often  bear,  viz.  'at  all'  (as  '  Does  he  act  at  all?'  is  equivalent  to 
'Does  he  even  make  a  beginning  of  action?').  This  is  the  interpre- 
tation wliich  the  early  Greek  writers,  Cyril  of  Alexandria  and  Chry- 
sostom  gave  to  the  words ;  and  we  cannot  but  lay  stress  on  the  fact 
that  such  men,  who  habitually  spoke  Greek,  seem  not  to  have  thought 
of  any  other  meaning.  Whether  the  sentence  is  an  exclamation  or  a 
question,  the  general  sense  is  the  sam_e,  viz.,  Whi/  am  I  even  speaking 
to  you  at  all?  Much  has  He  to  say  concerning  them  (ver.  26)  and  to 
judge ;  but  why  does  He  any  longer  speak  to  men  who  will  not  under- 
stand His  word  ?  The  words  remind  us  of  Matt.  17:17:  '0  faithless 
and  perverse  generation  !  How  long  shall  I  be  with  you  ?  How  long 
shall  I  suffer  you?'  And  yet  those  words  were  said  to  slow-minded 
Galilaeans,  not  to  the  hostile  'Jews.' 

Ver.  26.  I  have  many  things  to  speak  and  to  judge  con- 
cerning you.  It  is  unavailing  to  speak  to  them,  for  they  will  not 
believe.  Many  things  has  He  to  speak  concerning  them,  and  to  judge 
also. — Nevertheless  he  that  sent  me  is  true  ;  and  the  things 
■which  I  heard  from  him,  these  I  speak  unto  the  world.  To 
all  that  He  says  they  may  turn  a  deaf  ear;  'Nevertheless,'  Jesus  adds, 
*  He  that  sent  me  is  true,  and  the  words  which  I  have  heard  from 
Him,  these  and  no  others  do  I  speak  unto  the  world — the  u-orld,  to 
which  you  belong'  (ver.  23).  The  Jews  may  disbelieve;  His  judgment 
may  seem  severe;  but  the  words  are  God's  words,  and  they  are  true. 
Three  other  explanations  are  worthy  of  consideration — (1)  I  have 
many  things  .  .  .  but,  many  as  they  are,  they  are  true.  (2)  I  have 
many  things  .  .  .  but  I  will  not  keep  them  back,  for  I  faithfully  declare 
the  words  which  ...  (3)1  have  many  things  .  .  .  but  I  will  not  say 
them  now  :  the  things  which  I  have  heard  from  Him  that  sent  me 
must  be  first  declared.  The  first  of  these  seems  to  miss  the  sharp 
emphasis  of  the  'Nevertheless;'  the  second  and  third  to  miss  (though 


8 :  27,  28.]  JOHN  VIII.  199 

27  these  speak  I  ^unto  the  world.*     They  perceived  not 

28  that  he  spake  to  them  of  the  Father.  Jesas  therefore 
said,  When  ye  have  lifted  up  the  Son  of  man,  then 
shall  ye  know  that  ^I  am  /ie,t  and  that  I  do  nothing 
of  myself,  but  as  the  Father  taught  me,  I  speak  these 

1  Gr.  into. 

*  "unto  the  world"  omit  marg.  3  "Gr.  into." — Am.  Con. 

2  Or,  I  am.     Or,  /  u,m  he ;  and  I  do. 

f  "I  am  Ae"  omit  marg.  i  (and  the  corresponding  portion  of  marg.  *).    So  in  13 : 
19. — Am.  Com. 

in  diflFerent  degrees)  the  force  of  the  middle  clause:  'Nevertheless 
He  that  sent  me  is  true.' 

Ver.  27.  They  perceived  not  that  he  spake  to  them  of  the 
Father.  This  statement  of  the  Evangelist  is  very  remarkable  ;  and, 
as  it  is  so  diflFerent  from  anything  we  might  have  expected,  its  impor- 
tance as  a  guide  and  correction  is  the  greater.  In  this  section  (be- 
ginning at  ver.  21),  He  has  not  made  mention  of  *  the  Father.'  In 
the  section  which  precedes,  however  (vers.  12-20),  the  word  occurs 
several  times.  First,  Jesus  speaks  of  '  the  Father  who  sent  me ' 
(vers.  16,  18) :  in  their  answer  the  Jews  show  how  they  had  under- 
stood His  words  by  saying:  'Where  is  thy  Father  f  and  in  replying 
to  their  question,  Jesus  also  speaks,  not  of  'the  Father,'  but  of  ♦  My 
Father.'  So  far  as  these  two  sections  are  concerned,  therefore,  there 
is  nothing  to  show  that  His  hearers  had  understood  Him  to  make  dis- 
tinct mention  of  ^the  Father,'  in  the  absolute  sense— a  name  which, 
probably,  every  Israelite  would  have  received  as  belonging  to  God 
alone.  Hence — though  we  might  have  overlooked  the  fact  but  for  the 
Evangelist's  timely  words — we  cannot  feel  great  surprise  that  these 
hearers  had  not  yet  perceived  that  Jesus  was  making  mention  of  '  the 
Father.'  The  words:  'I  am  from  above,'  'He  that  sent  me,'  must 
have  suggested  to  those  w'ho  heard,  that  He  claimed  a  Divine  mission; 
but  men  familiar  with  the  mission  of  a  prophet  might  concede  so 
much  without  understanding  that  the  last  words  of  Jesus  ('the  things 
which  /  heard  from  Him  I  speak  unto  the  world')  implied  an  infinitely  .' 
higher  and  closer  relation  to  Him  whom  they  worshipped,  whom  ^ 
Jesus  revealed  as  'the  Father.'  In  this  Name  and  in  the  words  just 
spoken  is  contained  the  whole  economy  of  grace. 

Ver.  28.  Jesus  therefore  said,  "When  ye  have  lifted  on 
high  the  Son  of  man,  then  shall  ye  know  that  I  am,  and 
that  of  myself  I  do  nothing ;  but  even  as  the  Father  taught 
me,  I  speak  these  things.  They  know  not  the  truth  now;  when 
through  their  own  deed  the  Son  of  man  has  been  raised  on  high,  their 
eyes  will  be  opened,  they  will  see  what  they  have  done,  and  will  then 
know  that  His  words  were  true,  that  the  claims  which  they  resisted 
the  Father  Himself  has  ratified.  The  'lifting  on  high'  includes  both 
the  death  and  the  glorification  of  Jesus,  though  the  latter  meaning 


200  JOHN  VIII.  [8:  29-31. 

29  things.     And  he  that  sent  me  is  with  me ;  he  hath 
not  left  me  alone;  for  I  do  always  the  things  that 

30  are  pleasing  to  him.     As  he  sj^ake  these  things,  many 
believed  on  him. 

31  Jesus  therefore  said  to  those  Jews  which  had  be- 
lieved him,  If  ye  abide  in  my  word,  then  are  ye  truly 

only  "Would  be  understood  as  yet  (see  the  note  on  chap.  3:  14).  Some 
prefer  to  place  a  stop  at  the  word  am,  and  to  take  the  clauses  that 
follow  as  independent.  This  view,  however,  seems  much  less  natural 
than  the  other.  The  three  parallel  clauses — containing  the  thoughts 
of  (1)  pure  existence  (as  to  what  is  implied  in  this,  see  ver.  24),  (2) 
continued  dependence  on  the  Father  in  all  action  (see  chap.  5:  19,  2U), 
and  (3),  as  a  part  of  such  action,  speaking  in  constant  harmony  with 
the  Father's  will  and  teaching  (chap.  5:  30;  ver.  26) — express  the 
claims  made  by  Jesus,  the  truth  of  which  (of  each  and  of  all)  will  be 
established  when  He  is  'lifted  up  on  high.' 

Yer.  29.  And  he  that  sent  me  is  -with  me  :  he  left  me  not 
alone,  because  I  do  al^w^ays  the  things  that  are  pleasing  to 
him.  When  the  Father  sent  the  Son,  He  sent  Him  not  away  from 
Himself — not  for  a  moment  did  He  leave  him  alone.  The  abiding 
presence  of  the  Father  is  the  consequence  and  the  sign  of  the  Son's 
habitual  performance  of  the  Father  s  will.  In  all  this  Jesus  is  speak- 
ing as  the  Son  of  man,  as  the  Sent  of  the  Father.  It  is  most  interest- 
ing to  compare  the  corresponding  words  of  chap.  5,  where  the  subject 
thi'oughout  is  (he  Son  of  God.  It  will  be  seen  how  prominent  are 
two  thoughts  in  this  chapter — the  association  of  Jesus  with  the  Father 
who  sent  Him  (vers.  16,  18,  '23,  26,  28,  29,  38,  40,  42,  47,  54,  55), 
and  the  strong  moral  contrast  between  Jesus  and  the  Jews  (vers.  15, 
21,  23.  24,  37,  38,  40,  etc.).  The  observance  of  this  will  make  clearer 
the  links  connecting  the  several  parts. 

Yer.  30.  As  he  spake  these  things,  many  believed  in  him. 
We  are  not  told  to  what  class  these  belonged.  Ihe  latter  part  of  the 
chapter  shows  how  completely  '  the  Jews '  had  hardened  themselves : 
probably  therefore  these  believers  mainly  belonged  to  the  general 
body  of  the  hearers,  and  not  (in  any  large  proportion)  to  'the  Jews.' 
Once  more  then  we  have  an  illustration  of  that  two-fold  effect  of  our 
Lord's  teaching  which  .John  so  frequently  portrays. 

Yer.  31.  Jesus  said  therefore  to  the  Je-ws  -w^ho  had  be- 
lieved him.  The  word  'therefore'  closely  joins  this  section  with 
the  last.  Are  we  then  to  regard  the  Jews  of  this  verse  as  included  in 
the  'many'  of  the  last?  Certainly  not,  because  of  the  essential  differ- 
ence between  the  expressions  used  in  the  two  verses — '  believed  in 
him'  and  'believed  him.'  The  former  denotes  a  true  faith  in  Jesus, 
such  an  acceptance  of  Him  as  includes  a  surrender  of  the  heart,  the 
'self,'  to  Him;  the  latter,  an  acceptance  of  His  words  as  true.  Those 
who  'believed  Him'  were  in  the  way  towards  the  higher  faith,  but 


8 :  82,  33.]  JOHN  ^^11.  201 

32  my  disciples ;  and  ye  shall  know  tlie  truth,  and  the 

33  truth  shall  make  you  free.  They  answered  unto  him, 
We  be  Abraham's  seed,  and  haye  never  yet  been  in 
bondage  to  any  man :  how  say  est  thou,  Ye  shall  be 

yet  might  be  very  far  from  the  attainment  of  that  goal.  The  impres- 
sion pioduced  by  the  last  words  spoken  by  Jesus  appears  to  have 
been  very  great,  bringing  many  to  the  position  of  full  discipleship, 
and  even  convincing  some  of  the  hostile  Jews  themselves  that  they 
had  been  opposing  one  whose  words  were  true,  and  whose  claims  on 
their  obedience  were  just  and  right.  These  men  stand  between  the 
two  companies — the  Jews  with  whom  they  had  been  associated,  and 
the  believers  who  had  joined  themselves  to  the  Lord.  "Will  they  draw 
nearer  to  Him  and  '  believe  in  Him,^  or  will  they  return  to  His  ene- 
mies ?  The  words  which  Jesus  now  speaks,  to  instruct  and  to  encou- 
rage, prove  to  be  the  test  of  their  fiith. — If  ye  shall  abide  in  my 
•word,  ye  are  truly  my  disciples.  They  believed  His  word ;  if 
they  abide  in  this  word  of  His — clinging  to  it,  continuing  under  its 
influence — the  word  will  be  to  them  a  revelation  of  Jesus,  and  will 
assert  its  power.  Note  the  significance  ever  attached  in  this  Gospel 
to  the  word  of  Jesus.  As  He,  the  Word,  reveals  the  Father,  and 
leads  to  the  Father,  so  His  own  word  reveals  Himself,  and  draws  mea 
to  Himself  through  (so  teaches  the  fuller  revelation)  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  Truth. 

Ver.  32.  And  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall 
make  you  free.  If  they  shall  abide  in  the  word  of  Jesus,  it  will  be 
shown  that  they  have  begun  a  true  discipleship,  and  the  word  in 
which  they  abide  shall  make  known  to  them  the  truth.  So  far,  there 
is  nothing  that  these  imperfect  disciples  will  not  gladly  hear.  But 
Jesus  read  in  their  hearts  a  false  interpretation  of  His  work  and  their 
own  needs.  He  came  as  Saviour  (chap.  3:  IG,  36;  4:  42;  5:  40), 
not  as  Teacher  only:  in  this  very  chapter  He  has  spoken  of  faith  in 
Himself  as  delivering  from  death  in  sins  (ver.  24).  Here  the  figure  is 
changed  from  that  of  future  death  to  that  of  present  and  continued 
bondage:  'the  truth'  shall  be  the  means  of  giving  freedom.  There 
is  no  difficulty  in  these  words :  such  appropriation  of  the  truth  found 
in  the  words  of  Jesus  is  but  another  representation  of  faith  in  Him 
who  is  the  Giver  of  freedom. 

Ver.  33.  They  answered  him,  We  are  Abraham's  seed, 
and  have  never  yet  been  slaves  to  any  one :  how  sayest 
thou.  Ye  shaU  become  free?  The  promise:  'shall  make  you 
free,'  implies  that  now  they  have  no  freedom,  but  are  slaves.  This 
thought  they  indignantly  repel,  for  they  are.  Abraham's  seed  !  What 
is  the  true  meaning  of  the  next  words,  is  a  question  much  disputed. 
It  is  hardly  possible  that  they  refer  directly  to  national  freedom,  for 
the  first  words  of  the  Decalogue  speak  of  their  deliverance  from  the 
house  of  bondage,  and  this  history  had  often  been  repeated.     Nor  can 


202  JOHN  VIII.  [8 !  34,  85. 

34  made  free  ?     Jesus   answered    them,  Verily,   verily, 
I    say  unto    you,    Every   one    that  committeth    sin 

35  is   the    bondservant   of    sin.     And    the   bondservant 
abideth  not  in  the  house  for  ever :   the  son  abideth 

we  think  that  the  Jews  are  simply  appealing  to  the  law  which  made  it 
impossible  for  an  Israelite  to  be  kept  in  (continued)  bondage.  The 
former  supposition  involves  too  bold  a  falsehood  ;  the  latter,  too  pro- 
saic and  strained  an  interpretation  in  a  context  which  contains  no  hint 
of  civil  rights.  And  yet  there  is  truth  in  both.  To  be  of' Abraham's 
seed  and  to  be  a  slave  were  discordant  ideas.  To  Abraham  was  given 
the  promise  that  he  should  be  '  heir  of  the  world'  (Rom.  4:  13) ;  the 
Divine  nobility  of  his  descendants  was  only  brought  out  more  clearly 
by  their  frequent  adverse  fortune.  Theirs  was  a  religious  pre-emi- 
nence above  all  nations  of  the  world — a  freedom  which  no  exter- 
nal circumstance?  could  affect.  National  independence  was  natural 
(though  not  always  enjoyed),  because  of  this  Divinely-given  honor; 
in  the  same  gift  of  God  lay  the  principle  of  the  Israelite's  civil  free- 
dom. Least  of  all  (they  thouglit)  could  they,  whose  boast  was  that 
the  truth  was  theirs,  be  held  in  a  slavery  from  which  the  truth  should 
free  them. 

Ver.  34.  Jesus  answered  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  un- 
to you.  Every  one  that  doeth  sin  is  a  slave  of  sin.  Jesus 
directs  them  to  a  slavery  of  which  they  have  not  thought, — slavery  to 
sin.  Every  one  who  is  living  a  life  of  sin  is  a  slave  ;  each  act  ot  sin 
is  no  mere  accident  of  his  life,  but  a  token  of  its  nature,  a  mark  of  a 
bondage  in  which  he  is  continually  held.  The  word  '  doeth '  is  not 
the  same  as  that  which  is  used  in  chap.  3  :  20 ;  5  :  29  in  connection 
with  evil :  that  had  reference  to  the  commission  of  particular  acts, 
this  to  the  general  coui'se  of  life,  when  sin  is  chosen, — '  Evil  be  thou 
my  good.'  The  thought  is  best  illustrated  by  Rom.  6,  and  (espe- 
cially)  7. 

Ver.  35.  And  the  slave  abideth  not  in  the  house  for  ever: 
the  son  abideth  for  ever.  The  Jews  believed  that  they  were  free, 
the  sons  of  God  ;  and  that,  as  such,  they  were  permanent  possessors 
of  His  house,  and  thus  permanent  recipients  of  His  favor  and  love, 
inheritors  of  eternal  life.  Not  so.  In  all  this  they  deceived  them- 
0slves.  They  are  not  God's  sons,  but  slaves  of  sin.  As  such  they 
have  no  more  real  hold  of  the  house  of  God,  with  its  present  and  eter- 
nal privileges,  than  a  slave  has  of  the  privileges  of  the  house  in 
which  he  is  a  slave.  A  son  only  can  claim  a  place  in  the  house  and 
the  possession  of  what  belongs  to  the  house,  as  a  right  permanent, 
uninterrupted,  as  long  as  he  is  a  son.  In  all  this,  no  doubt,  there 
lies  a  reference  to  their  own  history.  As  the  son  of  the  bondwoman 
Hagar  in  the  house  of  Abraham,  so  were  they  in  the  house  of  God : 
as  Ishmael  (though  Abraham's  seed)  was  driven  forth,  having  no 
place  beside  the  son  who  was  free,  so  must  they  who  claimed  to  be 
Abraham's  seed  be  cast  out,  if  they  are  slaves  of  sin. 


8:  36-38.]  JOHN  VIII.  203 

36  for  ever.     If  therefore  the  Son  shall  make  you  free 

37  ye  shall  be  free  indeed.      I  know  that  ye  are  Abra- 
ham's seed ;  yet  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  because  my  word 

38  ^hath  not  free   course   in  you.     I   speak   the  things 
which  I  have  seen  with  ^my  Father :    and  ye  also  do 

1  Or,  hath  no  place  in  you. 
2  Or,  the  Father  ;  do  ye  also  there/ore  the  things  which  ye  heard  from  the  Father. 

Yer.  36.  If  the  Son  therefore  shall  make  you  free,  ye 
shall  be  free  indeed.  It  is  manifestly  a  special  freedom  that  is 
here  thought  of, — freedom  gained  by  becoming  sons,  and  thus  gaining 
all  that  belongs  to  the  position  of  a  son,  retaining  for  ever  a  connec- 
tion with  the  Father's  house.  One  only  can  give  this  freedom,  for 
One  only  can  give  this  Sonship, — He  who  is  the  Son  (-'ce  chap.  1  :  12). 
*  Free  indeed,'  not  in  appearance  only,  as  a  favored  slave  might  seem 
for  a  time  to  hold  the  place  of  a  son  in  the  house  :  '  free  indeed,'  be- 
cause receiving  the  freedom  and  sonship  from  One  who  '  remains  in 
the  house  for  ever,'  and  never  loses  the  rights  of  the  Son.  Ver.  33 
speaks  of  the  means  (*  the  truth'),  this  verse  of  the  Giver  of  freedom 
('  the  Son'),  The  word  here  rendered  '  indeed  '  is  a  very  remarka- 
ble one  :  it  is  used  nowhere  else  in  the  writings  of  John.  Closely 
connected  with  the  verb  '  I  am'  of  ver.  28,  it  is  designedly  employed  in 
order  to  bring  out  that  closeness  of  relation  between  the  sons  of  God 
and  the  Son  which  is  so  striking  a  part  of  the  teaching  of  this  chapter. 

Yer.  37.  I  kno"w  that  ye  are  Abraham's  seed  ;  but  ye  seek 
to  kill  me,  because  my  -word  maketh  no  vray  in  you.  Again 
our  Lord  takes  up  their  assertion  that  they  are  Abraham's  seed.  He 
has  answered  it  by  a  parable  :  He  speaks  now  in  plainer  words,  re- 
peating their  familiar  boast,  that  He  may  place  in  strongest  contrast 
the  spirit  they  had  shown  themselves  to  possess.  '  Ye  seek  to  kill 
me,'  He  says,  uniting  them  with  the  whole  body  from  which  a  little 
before  they  seemed  to  be  severed  ;  for  too  clearly  did  He  see  that  the 
severance  was  but  partial  and  altogether  transient.  His  word  had 
entered  their  hearts,  and  for  a  moment  they  had  moved  toward  Him  ; 
but  it  made  no  way  there,  its  progress  was  immediately  stayed,  and 
they  were  numbered  again  with  '  the  Jews,'  His  foes.  Hence  the  in- 
creasing severity  of  what  is  immediately  to  follow. 

Yer.  38.  I  speak  the  things  which  I  have  seen  -with  the 
Father :  do  ye  also  therefore  the  things  -which  ye  heard 
from  the  Father.  One  last  exhortation  Jesus  will  otier  before 
entirely  giving  up  these  '  Jews  who  had  believed  Him.'  His 
word  had  entered  their  heart  but  had  made  no  way  :  let  them  give  it 
free  course  now.  He,  the  Son,  who  alone  can  give  them  freedom  and 
sonship  by  the  truth  revealed  in  His  word  (vers.  32,  36),  has  in  that 
word  spoken  to  them  the  things  which  He  saw  with  the  Father 
(another  mode  of  expressing  the  same  truth  as  is  declared  in  chap.  3  : 
13).      With   design   He  says   'the  Father,' not  'i/y  Father;'  for  the 


204  JOHN  till.  [8:  39. 

39  the  things  which  ye  heard  from  your  father.     They 
answered  and  said  unto  him,  Our  father  is  Abraham. 

word  has  been  spoken  to  them  in  order  that  God  who  is  His  Father 
may  become  their  Father, — in  other  words,  that  the  Son  may  give 
them  sonship.  For  this  very  purpose  the  Father  sent  Him  to  declare 
the  word  :  this  He  has  done,  so  that  what  they  had  heard  from  Jesus 
they  had  heard  from  the  Father.  Let  them  do  that  which  they  have 
heard  and  the  blessing  of  sonship  shall  be  theirs.  (It  is  interesting 
to  compare  the  'knowing'  wliich  gives  freedom  (ver.  32)  with  this 
command  to  '  do  '  what  they  had  h*  ard.  In  effect  the  same  result  is 
promised,  so  that  the  knowledge  spoken  of  must  be  such  as  involves 
doing, — no  barren  knowledge,  but  one  that  grasps  and  moulds  the  life). 
But  we  must  not  overlook  the  '  therefore '  which  binds  together  the 
two  parts  of  the  verse.  In  the  execution  of  the  design  of  God,  to 
make  men  His  sons  and  thus  become  sons  of  '  the  Father,'  two  things 
are  necessary  :  the  Son  (the  'Word  ')  declares  the  truth  of  God  ;  men 
receive  the  word  of  the  Son,  know  it — with  that  knowledge  which 
implies  both  faith  and  action — and  become  the  sons  of  God.  The  Son 
has  been  faithful  to  His  mission, — this  the  first  clause  declares  :  let 
them  therefore  be  faithful  to  their  part,  and  the  ble&sing  will  be  theirs. 
The  more  common  view  of  this  verse  assumes  that  in  the  second  clause 
Jesus  speaks  of  another  father.  This  is  very  unlikely,  as  the  pro- 
noun your  is  not  inserted  until  a  later  verse  (ver.  41).  There  are 
also  two  other  reasons  for  preferring  the  interpretation  given  above  : 
(1)  It  is  hard  to  believe  that  Jesus,  so  tinder  in  His  dealing  with  even 
the  germs  of  true  faith,  has  already  passed  into  His  severest  condem- 
nation of  '  the  Jews  who  had  believed  Him.'  No  word  has  been 
spoken  by  them  since  that  recorded  in  ver,  33,  and  it  had  shown  blind- 
ness and  self-deception,  but  not  hopeless  antagonism.  True,  He  sees 
that  in  their  hearts  they  are  relapsing  into  their  former  state  ;  but 
may  we  not  well  believe  that  He  will  make  one  other  effort  to  instruct 
and  save  ?  (2)  Ae  we  have  already  seen  (yer.  27),  in  our  Lord's 
words  '  the  Father '  is  a  Name  used  with  great  significance  and  fulness 
of  meaning,  especially  in  this  chapter.  This  is  duly  recognised  in  the 
explanation  we  are  now  seeking  to  defend,  and  in  that  alone. — It  is 
remarkable  that  in  this  verse  Jesus  describes  Himself  as  speaking 
what  He  has  f,een  with  the  Father,  while  He  exhorts  them  to  do  what 
they  have  heard  from  the  Father.  But  the  words  are  deliberately 
chosen,  and  they  confirm  the  interpretation  now  given.  As  the  Eter- 
nal Son,  Jesus  alone  could  have  the  first  words  spoken  of  Him.  The 
second  appropriately  describe  the  state  of  those  who  had  not  '  seen,' 
who  had  only  'heard.'  The  difference,  in  short,  flows  from  that  dif- 
ference between  the  Son  and  all  other  sons  which  abides  even  in  the 
midst  of  similarity  of  position  :  the  One  has  an  eternal,  the  others 
have  only  a  derived,  Sonship. 

Ver.  39.     They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Abraham  is 
our  father.     This  answer  shows  how  their  minds  are  closing  against 


8:  40,  41.]  JOHN  YIII.  206 

Jesus  saith  unto  them,  if  ye  ^  were  Abraham's   chil- 

40  dren,  ^  ye  would  do  the  works  of  Abraham.  But 
now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath  told  you  the 
truth  which   I  heaixi   from    God  :  this  did  not  Abra- 

41  ham.  Ye  do  the  works  of  your  father.  They  said 
unto  him,  We  are  not  born  of  fornication  ;    we  have 

1  Gr.  are.         2  gome  ancient  authorities  read  ye  do  the  works  of  Abraham. 

the  word  of  Jesus.  Had  they  been  willing  to  recogrnise  the  true 
meaning  of  'the  Father'  in  the  first  clause  (of  ver.  38),  they  might 
have  seen  what  the  same  Name  implied  for  them  in  the  later  words. 
But  whilst  He  spoke  of  God  and  sought  to  lead  them  upwards,  they, 
proud  of  their  ancestry  and  content  with  Jewish  privilege,  will  think 
of  no  other  father  than  Abraham.  Yet  plainer  words  therefore  must 
be  used  to  make  them  understand  the  truth.— Jesus  saith  unto 
them,  If  ye  are  Abraham's  children,  do  the  works  of  Abra- 
ham. There  is  no  true  sonship  (in  the  sense  in  which  Jesus  is  dwell- 
ing on  the  idea)  where  there  is  not  likeness.  Descent  from  Abraham 
cannot  be  a  source  of  present  honor  and  blessing  to  those  who  do  not 
Abraham's  works.  They  are  Abraham'^  'seed'  (ver.  37),  not  his 
'children'  (comp.  1:   12). 

Ver.  40.  But  now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man  that  hath 
spoken  to  you  the  truth,  which  I  heard  from  God  :  this  did 
not  Abraham.  The  assertion  of  vers.  37,  38  is  reiterated,  but  now 
with  a  simple  directness  that  cannot  be  misunderstood  (thus  Jesus  no 
longer  speaks  of  '  the  Father'  out  of  God),  and  with  a  distinct  ex- 
pression of  the  contrast  ('  this  did  not  Abraham  ')  which  in  ver.  37 
has  been  merely  implied.  True  kindred  to  Abraham  is  therefore  im- 
possible in  their  case. 

Ver.  41.  Ye  do  the  w^orks  of  your  father.  Yet  the  principle 
of  ver.  39  cannot  but  be  true  :  certainly  they  are  doing  the  works 
of  their  father.— They  said  to  him,  "We  were  not  born  of  for- 
nication ;  we  have  one  Father,  even  God.  The  words  of 
Jesus  have  made  two  things  clear: — (1)  He  is  not  referring  to  na- 
tional origin,  but  to  spiritual  descent;  and  (2)  the  father  whose  sons 
Jesus  declares  them  to  be  is  not  good  but  evil.  In  answer  to  this  they 
indignantly  assert  that  they  are  sons  of  God.  Their  spiritual  is  as 
undoubted  as  their  natural  descent.  *  Whatever  may  be  the  case 
with  others  (the  word  "  we  ''  is  strongly  emphatic),  there  is  no  stain 
on  our  origin.'  We  cannot  but  think  that  some  antithesis  is  distinctly 
present  to  the  thought  of  the  Jews  as  they  use  the  words  '  we '  and 
'  one.'  And  if  we  bear  in  mind  the  regular  meaning  which  the  word 
'fornication'  bears  in  Old  Testament  prophecy,  when  used  in  such  a 
connection  as  this,  viz.  the  unholy  alliance  with  idols  instead  of  Je- 
hovah (Jer.  3  :  1,  etc.),  it  will  appear  very  probable  that  ver.  48  gives 
the  clue  to  the  meaning  here.     Jesus  was   called  a  Samaritan.     Sa- 


206  JOHN  VIII.  [8:  42-44. 

42  one  Father,  even  God.  Jesus  said  unto  them,  If  God 
were  your  Father,  ye  would  love  me :  for  I  came 
forth  and  am  come    from    God ;    for  neither  have  I 

43  come  of  myself,  but  he  sent  me.  Why  do  ye  not 
^understand  my    speech  ?     jE/ve^i    l^ecause    ye  cannot 

44  hear  my  word.  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and 
the  lusts  of  your  father  it  is  your  will  to  do.  He  was 
a  murderer  from   the  beginning,  and  ^stood  *  not  in 

1  Or,  know.         2  Some  ancient  authorities  read  slande'h. 
*For  'stood  '  read  'standeth '  and  omit  marg.  i. — Am.  Com. 

maritans  were  taunted  with  their  descent  from  men  who  '  feared  Je- 
hovah and  served  their  own  gods,'  (2  Kings  17  :  33).  This  thought, 
not  yet  plainly  expressed,  but  existing  in  their  minds,  explains  at  once 
the  emphatic  '  we,'  the  reference  to  '  fornication,'  and  the  stress  laid 
on  '  07ie  Father.' 

Ver.  42.  Jesus  said  unto  them,  If  God  -were  your  Fa- 
ther, ye  would  love  me :  for  from  God  I  came  forth,  and 
am  here,  for  also  I  have  not  come  of  myself,  but  he  sent 
me.  Again  Jesus  applies  the  same  principle  to  test  their  claim. 
Were  they  true  children  of  God,  then  they  would  love  whomsoever 
God  loves.  But  this  they  do  not,  for  they  love  not  Him  who  came 
forth  from  God  and  whom  God  sent.  The  words  in  which  Jesus 
speaks  of  His  relation  to  God  are  remarkable.  Alike  in  His  Incarna- 
tion, in  His  whole  manifestation  to  the  world,  and  in  His  mission^  He 
sustains  the  same  relation  to  the  Father :  all  is  from  and  of  the  Fa- 
ther. This  intimate  relation  implies  the  love  on  which  the  argument 
is  made  to  rest. 

Ver.  43.  Why  do  ye  not  know^  my  speech  ?  Because  ye 
cannot  hear  my  -word.  There  is  a  subtle  difference  between 
'  word  '  and  '  speech,'  the  former  properly  referring  to  substance,  the 
latter  to  the  form.  (Thus  in  Matt.  26  :  73,  when  the  same  word  is 
used,  it  is  said  that  Peter's  Galilean  '  speech  '  bewrayed  him).  Did 
they  hear  His  word,  were  they  really  sons  of  God,  they  would  recog- 
nise his  speeeh,  and  the  indications  (if  we  may  so  speak)  contained 
in  it  of  the  speech  of  that  heavenly  realm  from  which  He  came.  But 
they  could  not  bear  to  hear  His  word  :  what  He  taught  was  hateful  to 
them,  though  it  was  the  truth  which  He  heard  from  God  (ver  40). 
This  antipathy  to  the  substance  of  what  He  said  made  any  recognition 
of  the  teaching  as  bearing  on  itself  manifest  tokens  of  Divine  origin 
impossible. 

Ver.  44.  Ye  are  of  the  father  who  is  the  devil,  and  the 
desires  of  your  father  it  is  your  w^ill  to  do.  It  seems  desirable  to 
preserve  in  translation  the  expression  'the  father'  (for  'your  '  is  not 
found  in  the  Greek),  because  it  seems  to  be  our  Lord's  design  to  set 
this  in  strongest  contrast  to  the  name  which  He  has  used  with  most 


8 :  45,  46.]  JOHN  VIII.  207 


the  truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in  him.     ^When 
he  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his   own :    for   he 

45  is  a  liar,  and  the  father  thereof.     But  because  I   say 

46  the  truth,  ye    believe  me  not.     Which   of  you   con- 
victeth  me  of  sin  ?    If  I  say  truth,  why  do  ye  not 

1  Or,  WJienone  speaketh  a  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own  :  for  his  father  is  also  a  liar. 

significant  emphasis,  *  the  Father'  (see  the  notes  on  vers.  27  and  38). 
All  the  desires  of  their  father  it  was  their  will  to  do.  Their  works,  de- 
liberately chosen,  answered  to  their  parentage :  hence  their  seeking 
to  kill  .)esu3  (vers.  37,  40),  and  that  inability  to  listen  to  His  word 
(ver.  43).— He  was  a  man-killer  from  the  beginning,  and 
stood  not  in  the  truth.  Well  may  they  seek  to  kill  Jesus,  for  their 
father,  the  devil,  was  a  man-killer  from  the  beginning  of  his  dealings 
with  mankind.  His  seduction  of  mankind  was  itself  a  murder,  sever- 
ing man  from  the  life  of  God,  and  bringing  in  the  evil  that  has  been 
the  cause  of  every  crime.  Thus  he  is  the  shedder  '  of  all  the  right- 
eous blood  shed  upon  the  earth.'  Not  only  was  he  a  man-killer,  but 
he  '  stood  not  in  the  truth.'*  It  does  not  seem  likely  that  these  words 
refer  to  the  fall  of  the  '  angels  who  kept  not  their  first  estate/  for  then 
surely  the  order  of  the  clauses  would  have  been  reversed.  Through- 
out all  past  history  the  devil  shunned  'the  truth,'  took  his  stand  with- 
out the  borders  of  'the  truth,'  because  this  action  alone  is  suitable  to 
his  essential  (though  not  original)  nature. — Because  there  is  no 
truth  in  him.  His  hatred  of  '  the  truth '  springs  from  this,  that  he 
is  not  true ;  'truth'  (noAv  used  without  the  article)  is  not  in  him;  and 
his  own  hatred  of  the  truth  is  transmitted  to  his  children,  who  cannot 
hear  of  the  word  of  Jesus  (ver.  43)— "Whensoever  one  speaketh 
the  lie,  he  speaketh  of  his  own,  because  his  father  also  is  a 
liar.  Whensoever  a  man  who  is  a  child  of  the  devil  uttereth  false- 
hood, he  is  giving  forth  what  by  very  nature  belongs  to  him,  what  is 
his  peculiar  property  by  right  of  kindred  and  inheritance, — because 
his  father  also,  the  devil,  is  a  liar. 

Ver.  45.  But  because  I  say  the  truth,  ye  believe  me  not. 
They  loved  the  lie,  because  their  father  was  a  liar,  and  his  desires  it 
was  their  will  to  do.  Such  was  their  love  for  falsehood  (even  as  their 
father  'stood  not  in  the  truth'),  that,  because  .Jesus  said  the  truth, 
they  believed  Him  not.  The  word  '  I '  is  emphatic,  marking  again  the 
contrast  between  them  and  Him. 

Ver.  46.  Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of  sin  ?  No  charge 
of  sin  could  any  one  of  them  bring  home  to  Him,  no  responsive  con- 
sciousness of  sin  could  any  one  awaken  in  His  breast.  These  words 
are  implicitly  an  assertion  of  His  perfect  sinlessness ;  and  His  enemies 
are  silent. — If  I  say  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe  me  ?  Their 
knowledge  of  His  sinless  life  took  from  them  all  pretext  for  their  dis- 

*  Not  'standeth  :'  tlie  word  is  probably  an  imperfect  (of  cttjjkw). 


208  JOHN  VIII.  [8:  47-49. 

47  believe  me  ?   He  that  is  of  God  heareth  the  words  of 
God  :    for  this  cause  ye  hear  them  not,  because  ye  are 

48  not  of  God.     The  Jews  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
Say   we  not   well   that   thou   art  a  Samaritan,   and 

49  hast  a  ^devil  ?    Jesus  answered,  I  have  not   a  ^devil ; 

1  Gr.  demon.  2  Qr.  demon. 

belief.  We  know  that  His  words  brought  their  own  evidence  to  those 
who  loved  the  truth.  The  true  answer  to  this  question  then  must  be 
that  they  loved  falsehood.  But  this  answer  they  would  never  give.  The 
tone  of  this  verse  clearly  shows  that  what  has  been  said  of  their  father 
the  devil  related  not  to  necessity  of  nature,  but  to  deliberate  choice 
(see  note  on  ver.  23),  for  such  an  appeal  was  intended,  and  would  be 
understood,  to  imply  condemnation  of  those  who  thus  wilfully  refused 
to  believe.     The  same  thought  is  present  in  the  following  verse. 

Ver.  47.  He  that  is  of  God  heareth  the  -words  of  God  :  for 
this  cause  ye  hear  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  God.  As  in 
ver.  43,  the  word  hear  has  the  meaning  listen  to,  so  that  the  thought 
of  receiving  and  believing  is  implied.  He  that  is  of  God,  and  he  alone, 
thus  listens  to  the  words  of  God  :  recognising  their  origin,  willing  to 
receive  their  teaching,  he  takes  them  into  his  heart. 

Ver.  48.  The  Jev^s  answ^ered  and  said  unto  him.  Say  vcre 
not  -well  that  thou  art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  demon  ?  To 
say  that  Jews  were  children  of  the  devil  seemed  an  insult,  not  to  them- 
selves only,  but  to  God,  whose  children  they  believed  themselves  to  be. 
No  one  but  a  Samaritan,  filled  with  jealous  hatred  of  the  people  of  God, 
or  one  in  whom  dwelt  a  demon,  one  of  the  spirits  whose  sole  aim  was 
the  subversion  of  God's  kingdom,  could  utter  such  words  as  these.  It 
is  possible  that  the  Jews  may  have  heard  something  of  our  Lord's  short 
sojourn  in  Samai'ia,  and  of  the  favor  which  He  had  then  shown  to  that 
despised  people  :  such  a  parable  as  that  of  the  Good  Samaritan  (which 
was  spoken  at  a  time  not  far  distant  from  that  to  which  this  chapter  re- 
lates) may  have  been  so  used  by  enemies  as  to  give  color  to  an  accusa- 
tion of  favoring  Samaria  and  slighting  Judcea.  At  all  events  it  is  clear 
that  the  name  '  Samaritan '  was  now  frequently  given  to  our  Lord  as  a 
term  of  reproach. — We  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  those  who  are 
now  addressing  Jesus  are  ♦  the  Jews,' — not  a  part  (ver.  31),  but  the 
Jews  as  a  body. 

Ver.  49.  Jesus  answ^ered,  I  have  not  a  demon  :  but  I 
honor  my  Father,  and  ye  do  dishonor  me.  His  answer  is  ^ 
simple  denial  of  the  graver  accusation  of  the  two,  and  also  such  an 
assertion  regarding  His  thought  and  purpose  as  was  equivalent  to  a  de- 
nial of  all  such  charges.  He  honors  His  Father, — even  in  the  very 
words  which  had  seemed  to  them  an  insult  to  God  Himself.  '  It  is 
ye,'  He  adds,  'that  are  dishonoring  me  :'  it  is  not  I  who  (like  Samari- 
tans j  dishonor  you. 


8:  50-52.]  JOHN  VIII.  209 

50  but  I  honor  my  Father,  and  ye  dishonor  me.  But 
I  seek  not  mine  own  glory  ;    there  is  one  that  seeketh 

51  and  judgeth.      Verily,  verily,  I    say  unto   you.  If  a 

52  man  keep  my  word,  he  shall  never  see  death.  The 
Jews  said  unto  him,  Xoav  we  know  that  thou  hast 
a  ^devil.  Abraham  is  dead*  and  the  prophets  ;  and, 
thou  sayest.  If  a  man  keep  my  word,  he  shall  never 

1  Gr.  demon. 
*  For  "is  dead  ' '  and  "  are  dead  "  read  "  died"  (Comp.  6 :  40,  58). — Am.  Com. 

Ver.  50.  But  I  seek  not  my  glory  :  there  is  one  that  seek- 
eth and  judgeth.  He  will  not  protest  against  the  dishonor  they  of- 
fer Him  :  His  cause  is  in  the  Father's  hand.  That  glory  which  He 
seeks  not  for  Himself,  the  Father  seeks  to  give  Him.  The  Father  is 
deciding,  and  will  decide  between  His  enemies  and  Himself. 

Ver.  51.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  If  a  man  have 
kept  my  -word  he  shall  never  behold  death.  The  solemn  in- 
troductory words  indicate  that  the  discourse  is  taking  a  higher  strain  : 
once  before  they  have  been  used  in  this  chapter,  in  ver.  34  (but  to  a 
part  only  of  'the  Jcavs'),  and  once  again  we  shall  meet  with  them  (ver.  ? 
68).  In  ver.  34  Jesus  is  speaking  of  slaveri/  from  which  He  frees  ; 
here  of  death  which  He  abolishes  (2  Tim.  1 :  10).  In  the  former  case 
the  means  of  deliverance  is  continuing  in  the  w^ord  of  Jesus  and 
knowing  the  truth  (see  ver.  32)  ;  here  He  gives  the  promise  to  him 
that  has  '  kept  His  word,' — has  received  it,  hidden  it  in  his  heart,  and 
observed  it  in  his  life  (see  ver.  37,  also  chap.  14:  15,  etc.).  The 
thought  here  is  substantially  the  same  as  in  (chap.  4  :  14  ;  5  :  24 ;  6  : 
61),  where  we  read  of  the  living  bread  given  that  a  man  may  eat  of  it 
and  not  die.  That  passage  presents  one  side  of  the  condition,  the  close 
fellowship  of  the  believer  with  Jesus  Himself,  of  which  eating  is  the  sym- 
bol ;  this  presents  another  side,  the  believing  reception  of  His  word 
(which  reveals  Himself),  and  the  practical  and  continuous  observance 
of  the  precepts  therein  contained.  In  chap.  6 :  50,  the  words  *  may 
not  die '  do  not  seem  to  have  been  misunderstood, — possibly  because  so 
near  the  promise  of  '  eternal  life,'  which  suggested  a  figurative  mean- 
ing, possibly  because  of  a  difference  in  the  mood  and  disposition  of  the  ' 
hearers.  In  neither  place  did  Jesus  promise  that  they  who  are  His 
shall  not  pass  through  the  grave,  but  that  to  them  death  shall  not  be 
death, — in  death  itself  they  shall  live  (see  chap.  9  :  26). 

Vers.  52,  53.  The  Jews  said  unto  him.  Now  -we  know 
tlflt  thou  hast  a  demon.  Abraham  died,  and  the  prophets ; 
and  thou  sayest,  If  a  man  have  kept  my  w^ord,  he  shall 
never  taste  of  death.  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father 
Abraham,  w^ho  died  ?  and  the  prophets  died :  whom 
makest  thou  thyself  ?  The  word  'now'  looks  back  to  ver.  48. 
'  Even  if  we  were  too  hasty  then,  now  we  have  learnt  from  thine  own 
words  that  our  charge  is  true.'  In  attributing  to  His  word  a  power  to 
14 


210  JOHN  VIII.  [8 :  53-55. 

63  taste  of  death.  Art  thou  greater  than  our  father  Abra- 
ham,  Avhich   is    dead?  and  the  prophets    are  dead  :* 

54  whom  makest  thou  thyself?  Jesus  answered,  If  I 
glorify  myself,  my  glory  is  nothing  :  it  is  my  Father 
that  glorilieth  me  ;  of  whom  ye  say,  that  he  is  your 

55  God ;  and  ye  have  not  known  him  :  but  I  know  him  ; 
and  if  I  should  say  I  know  him  not,  I  shall  be  like 
imto  you,  a  liar  :  but  I  know  him,  and  keep  his  word. 

*For  "  is  dead  "'  and  "  are  dead  "  read  'died  "  (Compare  6 :  40,  58). — Am,  Com.  "^ 

preserve  His  followers  from  that  which  had  come  upon  the  prophets, 
and  even  on  Abraham  himself,  He  is  clearly  placing  Himself  above 
Abraham  and  the  prophets.  Whom  then  is  He  making  Himself? — 
The  Jews  do  not  quote  the  words  of  Jesus  with  exactness.  He  had 
said,  '  shall  never  behold  death,' — for  ever  shall  be  spared  the  sight  of 
death  ;  they  vary  the  metaphor  a  little,  passing  to  a  still  more  familiar 
phrase,  'taste  death  ;'  perhaps  because  it  seemed  more  distinct  and 
clear,  less  susceptible  of  a  figurative  meaning. 

Vers.  54,  5oa.  Jesus  ans-wered,  If  I  glorify  myself,  my 
glory  is  nothing  :  it  is  my  Father  that  glorifieth  me,  of 
■whom  ye  say  that  he  is  your  God,  and  have  not  got  kno^w- 
ledge  of  him.  First,  Jesus  answers  the  direct  question,  'Whom 
makest  Thou  Thyself  ?'  and  the  general  charge  of  self-exaltation  which 
those  words  contain.  The  specific  reference  to  Abraham  He  speaks  of 
afterwards  (ver.  56).  The  tenor  of  His  reply  resembles  that  of  ver. 
50 ;  but,  as  elsewhere,  the  second  statement  has  the  greater  force  and 
clearness.  The  reality  of  the  glory  of  Jesus  consists  in  this,  that  it 
comes  from  His  Father,  whom  they  called  their  God,  but  of  whom  they 
had  gained  no  knowledge. 

Ver.  55  b.  But  I  know  him  ;  and  if  I  should  say  I  know 
him  not,  I  shall  be  like  unto  you,  a  liar :  but  I  know  him, 
and  keep  his  v7ord.  Jesus  can  say,  'I  know  God,'  by  direct,  in- 
tuitive, perfect  knowledge.  The  word  which  He  uses  in  reference  to 
Himself  ( •  I  know  ')  is  difi'erent  from  that  used  in  the  preceding  clause, 
this  latter  ('ye  have  got  knowledge')  referring  to  the  result  of  exper- 
ience, to  knowledge  gained  by  many  acts  of  perception.  Were  Jesus 
to  deny  His  immediate  knowledge.  He  would  be  as  false  as  they  have 
been  in  professing  to  know  God.  The  last  words  are  interestin^as 
bringing  out  once  more  the  truth  which  we  have  seen  presented  in 
earlier  verses  :  His  own  work  in  the  execution  of  the  Father  s  will  is 
the  model  of  the  work  which  He  requires  from  man.  His  people  '  keep 
His  word'  (ver.  51) :  He  Himself  keeps  the  Father's  word.  So,  in  chap. 
20 :  21,  He  says  to  the  apostles,  '  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also 
Bend  you.' 


8 :  56.]  JOHN  VIII.  211 

56  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  Ho   see  my  day ;  and 

1  Or,  that  he  should  see. 

Ver.  56.  Your  father  Abraham  exulted  that  he  should  see 
my  day ;  and  he  sa-w  it  and  rejoiced.  This  translation,  though 
more  exact  than  that  of  the  Authorized  Version,  does  not  fully  bring 
out  the  meaning  of  the  original.  All  English  I'enderings  of  the  words 
(unless  they  are  paraphrases)  must  be  more  or  less  ambiguous.  '  Re- 
joiced to  see  '  conveys  the  meaning  of  '  rejoiced  because  (or  when)  he 
saw;'  exulted  that  he  should  see,  means  strictly,  'exulted  in  the 
knowledge  that  he  should  see.'  Nor  is  the  difficulty  removed  if  we 
take  the  ordinary  rendering  of  the  Greek  construction,  'that  he  might ;' 
for  exulted  that  he  might  see  is  ambiguous  still,  though  not  in  the  same 
way.  Perhaps  the  Greek  words  (which  are  very  peculiar)  are  best 
represented  by  the  paraphrase,  '  Your  father  Abraham  exulted  in  de- 
sire that  he  might  see  my  day  ;  and  he  saw  (it)  and  rejoiced.'  The 
interpretation,  which  is  as  difficult  as  the  translation,  turns  mainly  on 
the  meaning  of  the  words  '  my  day.'  The  nearest  approach  to  this  ex- 
pression in  the  New  Testament  is  found  in  Luke  17:  22,  '  one  of  the 
days  of  the  Son  of  man,'  where  the  meaning  must  be  '  one  of  the  days 
connected  with  the  manifestation  of  the  Son  of  man  upon  the  earth.' 
Here  the  form  is  more  definite,  '  my  day,'  and  it  seems  exceedingly 
difficult  to  give  any  other  meaning  than  either  the  whole  period  of  the 
life  of  Jesus  on  earth,  or,  more  precisely,  the  epoch  of  the  Incarnation. 
In  this  case  the  past  tense  '  he  saw  it '  is  conclusive  for  the  latter,  if 
actual  sight  is  intended.  The  patriarch  received  the  promise  in  which 
was  contained  the  coming  of  the  day  of  Christ.  By  faith  he  saw  this 
day  in  the  far  distance,  but — more  than  this — exulting  in  the  prospect 
he  longed  to  see  the  day  itself:  in  joyful  hope  he  waited  for  this.  In 
the  fulness  of  time  the  day  dawned ;  the  heavenly  host  sang  praises  to 
God  for  its  advent ;  and  (none  who  remember  the  appearance  of  Moses 
and  Elias  on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration  can  feel  any  difficulty  in  the 
words  of  this  verse)  Abraham  too  saw  it  and  rejoiced.  By  those  who 
do  not  accept  this  explanation  it  is  urged — (1)  That  Jf  sus  would  prob- 
ably not  thus  refer  the  Jews  to  that  which  no  Scripture  records.  But 
the  truth  spoken  of  is  so  general  and  so  simple — Abraham's  knowledge 
of  the  fulfilment  of  God's  promises  to  him — that  no  Jew  who  believed 
in  Jesus  could  refuse  it  credence.  (2)  That  'sees'  and  'rejoices' 
would  be  more  natural  than  'saw'  and  'rejoiced.'  Not  so,  if  the  In- 
carnation is  the  event  before  the  mind.  (3)  That  this  view  is  not  in 
harmony  with  the  reply  of  the  Jews  in  the  next  verse.  That  point 
will  be  considered  in  the  note  on  the  verse.  The  only  other  possible 
interpretation  is  that  which  refers  the  words  to  two  distinct  periods  in 
the  earthly  life  of  Abraham  ;  one  at  which,  after  receiving  the  prom- 
ise, he  exulted  in  eager  desire  for  a  clearer  sight,  and  another  at  which 
this  clearer  sight  was  gained.  But  it  is  very  hard  to  think  of  two 
epochs  in  the  patriarch's  life  at  which  these  conditions  were  satisfied  ; 
and  it  is  still  more  difficult  to  believe  that  '  my  day '  is  the  expression 


212  JOHN  VIII.  [8:  57-59. 

57  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad.      The   Jews  therefore  said 
unto    him,    Thou  art  not  yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast 

58  thou  seen  Abraham  ?     Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Before  Abraham  ^  was,*   I 

59  am.      They  took  up  stones  therefore  to  cast  at  him ; 

1  Gr.  ivas  born. 
*  For  "  was"  read  "  was  born"  and  omit  raarg.  > — Am.  Com. 

that  Jesus  would  have  used  had  this  been  the  sense  designed.  Verily, 
if  Abraham  thus  exulted  in  the  thought  of  the  coming  of  his  son  and 
his  Lord,  the  Jews  who  are  despising  and  rejecting  Him  do  not  Abra- 
ham's works,  are  no  true  seed  of  Abraham. 

Ver.  57.  The  Jews  therefore  said  unto  him,  Thou  art  not 
yet  fifty  years  old,  and  hast  thou  seen  Abraham  ?  The  Jews 
understand  'my  day'  to  mean  the  time  of  His  life  ;  and  His  knowing 
that  Abraham  has  witnessed  this  with  joy  must  certainly  imply  that 
He  has  seen  Abraham.  How  can  this  be,  since  He  is  not  fifty  years  of 
age  ?  It  seems  most  probable  that  '  fifty '  is  chosen  as  a  round  number, 
as  a  number  certainly  beyond  that  of  our  Lord's  years  of  life.  Some 
have  supposed  from  this  verse  that  sorrow  had  given  to  Him  the  ap- 
pearance of  premature  age  when  He  was  only  thii-ty.     Not  likely. 

Ver.  58.  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  Before  Abraham  -was  born,  I  am.  The  third  occurrence  of 
the  solemn  formula,  '  Verily,  verily,'  marks  the  highest  point  reached 
by  the  words  of  Jesus  at  this  time.  The  substance  of  the  words  is  in 
completest  harmony  with  the  form.  In  the  clearest  possible  manner  Jesus 
declares,  not  only  His  existence  before  Abraham,  but  also  the  essential 
distinction  between  His  being  and  that  of  any  man.  Man  is  born, 
man  passes  through  successive  periods  of  time :  of  Himself,  in  regard 
alike  to  past,  present,  and  future,  Jesus  says  '  I  am.'  He  claims  for 
Himself  that  absolute,  unchanging  existence  which  is  the  attribute  of 
God  alone.  If  any  argument  be  needed  to  enforce  that  which  the 
words  themselves  supply,  it  is  furnished  in  the  conduct  of  the  Jews 
(ver.  59),  who  clearly  understood  them  to  be  a  distinct  (and  in  their 
mind  a  blasphemous)  claim  of  that  which  belonged  to  God  alone.  The 
thought  is  distinctly  present  in  the  Old  Testament :  see  Vs.  102  :  27, 
but  especially  Ps.  00:  2.  The  English  reader  naturally  recurs  in 
thought  to  Ex.  3  :  14,  but  there  are  two  considerations  which  make  it 
very  difficult  to  assert  positively  that  that  verse  is  necessarily  referred 
to  here:  (1)  The  doubt  which  rests  on  the  translation.  *  I  will  be'  is 
at  least  as  natural  as  a  translation  as  'I  am.'  (2)  The  Greek  transla- 
tion of  the  Divine  Name  there  used  differs  materially  from  the  words 
of  this  verse,  and  agrees  rather  with  the  original  of  Rev.  1:4.  If 
our  version  does  really  express  the  meaning  of  Ex.3  :  14,  it  is  impossi- 
ble not  to  associate  that  verse  with  the  one  before  us. 

Ver.  59.  They  took  up  stones  therefore  that  they  might 
cast  them  upon  him ;  but  Jesus  hid  himself,  and  went  forth 


9:  1,2.]  JOHN  IX.  213 

_  but   Jesus   ^  hid   himself,   and   he   went   out   of  the 
temple.^ 

Chapter  9 :  1-12. 
The  Opening  of  the  Eyes  of  the  Blind  Man. 

1  And  as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  blind  from  his 

2  birth.     And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying,  Rabbi, 

1  Or,  was  hidden,  and  went,  d-c. 
*  Many  ancient  authorities  add  and  going  through  the  midst  of  them  went  his  way,  and 

so  passed  by. 

from  the  temple-courts.  The  Jews  were  enraged  at  what  they 
considered  blasphemy,  and  in  their  rage  they  would  have  stoned  Him 
(compare  chap.  10:  31).  But  His  hour  was  not  yet  come.  He  hid 
Himself  (whether  miraculously  or  not  we  cannot  tell),  and  went  forth 
from  the  temple. 

The  Opening  of  the  Eyes  of  the  Blind  Man,  vers.  1-12. 

Contexts. — The  conflict  of  Jesns  with  the  Jews  begins  to  draw  to  a  close.  At  the 
last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter,  Jesns  had  hidden  Himself  and  gone  out  of  the 
temple,  leaving  it  in  possession  of  those  who  had  wilfully  blinded  themselves  against 
His  claims,  who  must  now  therefore  be  left  to  the  darkness  which  they  have  chosen, 
and  from  whom  such  as  will  behold  in  Him  the  Light  of  Life  must  be  withdrawn. 
This  great  truth  is  illustrated  by  the  stor>'  of  the  man  born  blind,  upon  whom  a 
miracle  of  healing  is  performed.  The  enmity  of  the  Jews  is  roused ;  but  in  the  pro- 
cess raised  by  them,  they  are  defeated,  and  the  blind  man,  cast  out  by  his  former 
co-religionists,  becomes  a  trophy  of  the  power  and  grace  of  the  persecuted  Eedeemer. 

Yer.  1.  And  as  he  passed  by,  he  saw  a  man  "who  "was 
blind  from  his  birth.  There  is  nothing  to  connect  this  chapter 
with  the  last,  in  regard  to  time  or  place.  The  day  to  which  the  nar- 
rative refers  was  a  Sabbath  (ver.  14);  the  blind  man  (who  was  of 
Jewish  birth  ;  see  ver.  34)  had  been  wont  to  sit  and  beg  from  passers- 
by  (ver.  8),  perhaps  at  the  gates  of  the  temple,  like  the  lame  man, 
Acts  3.  The  two  points  which  John  brings  before  us  are  simply  that 
the  case  of  the  afflicted  man  was  (in  itself)  hopeless,  and  that  the 
Saviour  saw  him  as  He  passed  by.  The  obvious  purpose  of  this  latter 
statement  is  to  direct  our  thoughts  to  the  spontaneous  compassion  of 
Jesus.  The  man  said  nothing,  did  nothing,  to  awaken  His  pity,  nor 
did  the  question  of  the  disciples  in  ver.  2  first  call  His  attention  to  the 
case.  He  feels  and  acts  Himself;  and  the  interest  of  the  disciples 
does  not  precede,  but  follow,  that  shown  by  their  Master. 

Ver.  2.  And  his  disciples  asked  him,  saying,  Rabbi,  who 
did  sin,  this  man,  or  his  parents,  that  he  should  be  born 
blind  ?  It  is  not  said  that  the  disciples  were  moved  to  pity ;  but  it 
is  not  right  to  assume  the  contrary.  That  Jesus  had  looked  on  the 
blind  man  would  be  enough  to  raise  their  expectation  of  a  cure ;  but 
expressly  to  relate  this  might  well  seem  needless.     Whatever  feeling, 


214  JOHN  IX.  [9 :  3. 

who  did  sin,  this  man,  or  his  parents,  that  he  should 

3  be  born   blind  ?      Jesus  answered,  Neither  did  this 

man  sin,  nor  his  parents  :  but  that  the  works  of  God 

however,  the  sight  may  have  stirred  in  them,  it  recalled  a  problem 
which  was  very  familiar  to  the  thought  of  the  Jews,  and  Avhich  re- 
peatedly meets  us  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament — the  connec- 
tion between  personal  sin  and  bodily  suffering  or  defect.  Here  was  a 
signal  example  of  physical  infirmity;  what  was  its  cause?  In  assu- 
ming that  the  blindness  was  the  consequence  of  sin,  they  were  follow- 
ing the  current  theology  of  their  time;  but  how  was  this  dogma  to  be 
applied  in  the  case  before  them  ?  AVho  had  sinned  ?  Was  it  the  man 
himself?  Or  had  his  parents  committed  some  offence  which  was  now 
visited  upon  their  child?  (Comp.  Ex.20:  5;  34:  7;  Num.  14:  18,  33; 
Jer.  32:  18.)  As  to  the  former  alternative,  three  explanations  deserve 
mention.  (1)  We  are  told  by  Josephus,  that  the  Pharisees  held  the 
belief  that,  whereas  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  eternally  punished, 
the  souls  of  the  righteous  pass  into  other  bodies.  Hence  it  has  beeu 
maintained  that  the  Pharisees  held  the  doctrine  of  the  transmigration 
of  souls ;  and  the  passage  before  us  is  frequently  explained  accordingly. 
If,  however,  we  compare  all  the  passages  in  which  Josephus  refers  to 
tenets  of  the  Pharisees  respecting  the  state  of  man  after  death,  it  will 
at  least  appear  very  uncertain  that  such  a  meaning  should  be  attached 
to  his  words  as  quoted  above.  It  is  very  possible  that  the  historian 
is  there  referring  entirely  to  a  state  of  being  beyond  the  limits  of  this 
world's  history  ;  or  that,  in  the  attempt  to  present  the  belief  of  his 
countrymen  in  a  form  familiar  to  the  Roman  conquerors,  he  has  used 
language  which  conveys  an  erroneous  impression.  At  all  events,  we 
cannot  assume  that  the  transmigration  of  souls  was  a  tenet  widely  em- 
braced by  the  Jewish  people  of  that  age,  without  far  stronger  evidence 
than  we  now  possess.  (2)  The  philosophic  doctrine  of  the  pre-exist- 
ence  of  souls  was  certainly  held  by  many  Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ. 
As  early  as  the  Book  of  Wisdom  we  find  a  reference  to  it  (see  chap.  8 : 
19,  20),  and  passages  of  similar  tendency  may  easily  be  quoted  from 
Philo.  (3)  It  seems  to  have  been  an  ancient  Jewish  opinion,  that  sin 
could  be  committed  by  the  unborn  child ;  and  that  the  narrative  of 
Gen.  25,  appearing  to  teach  that  the  odious  character  of  a  supplanter 
belonged  to  Jacob  even  before  birth,  gave  the  authority  of  Scripture  to 
such  a  belief.  On  the  whole  this  affords  the  best  explanation  of  the 
question  of  the  disciples  :  Was  the  sin  so  severely  punished  committed 
by  this  man  himself,  in  the  earliest  period  of  his  existence,  or  have 
the  iniquities  of  his  parents  been  visited  upon  him  ? 

Ver.  3.  Jesus  answered,  Neither  did  this  man  sin,  nor 
his  parents :  but  that  the  works  of  God  should  be  made 
manifest  in  him.  Jesus  does  not  deny  the  presence  of  sin  in  the 
man  himself  or  in  his  parents ;  His  words  must  be  read  in  close  con- 
nection with  the  question  to  which  they  form  a  reply.  The  meaning 
of  the  whole  verse  (which  is  unusually  elliptical)  may  be  given  thus : 


9 :  4-6.]  JOHN  IX.  215 


4  should  be  made  manifest  in  him.  We  must  work 
the  works  of  him  that  sent  me,  while  it  is  day :  the 

5  night  Cometh,  when  no  man  can  work.     When  I  am 

6  in  the  world,  I  am  the  light  of  the  Avorld.  When  he 
had  thus  spoken,  he  spat  on  the  ground,  and  made 
clay  of  the  spittle,  ^and  anointed  his  eyes  with  the 

1  Or,  and  with  the  day  thereof  anointed  his  eyes. 

''Neither  did  this  man  sin  nor  his  parents  that  he  should  be  born 
blind,  but  (he  Avas  born  blind — he  is  as  he  is)  that  the  works  of  God 
may  be  manifested  in  him.'  Not  to  suggest  or  unravel  speculative 
questions,  but  to  present  a  sphere  for  the  manifestation  of  the  works 
of  God,  hath  this  man  borne  this  infirmity.  The  last  clause  of  the 
verse  does  not  simply  mean  that  a  miracle  is  to  be  wrought  on  him : 
*m  him' — alike  in  his  physical  (vers.  6,  7)  and  in  his  spiritual  heal- 
ing (vers.  36-38) — the  love  and  grace  of  God  are  to  be  made  manifest. 

Ver.  4.  We  must  work  the  works  of  him  that  sent  me, 
while  it  is  day :  the  night  cometh,  w^hen  no  one  can  w^ork. 
The  substitution  of  'we'  for  '1'  (a  change  supported  by  the  best  evi- 
dence) lends  peculiar  force  and  beauty  to  the  verse.  Jesus  associates 
His  disciples  with  Himself;  like  Himself  they  have  a  calling  which 
must  not  be  disobeyed,  to  work  the  woi"ks  of  God  ;  for  them,  as  for 
Himself,  the  period  of  such  action  will  not  always  last.  He  does  not 
say:  'Him  that  sent  us,'  for  it  is  the  Son  who  sends  His  disciples, 
even  as  the  Father  sends  the  Son  (chap.  20:  21).  'Day'  is  used  in 
this  proverbial  saying  simply  to  denote  the  time  during  which  the 
working  assigned  to  Jesus  and  His  people  in  this  world  can  be  per- 
formed ;  '  night,'  the  time  when  the  working  is  impossible.  It  is  true 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  continues  to  work  by  His  Spirit,  and  through  Hig 
servants,  though  the  'day'  of  which  He  here  speaks  soon  reached  its 
close. 

Ver.  5.  Whensoever  I  am  in  the  world,  I  am  the  light  of 
the  ^vorld.  The  work  of  Jesus  in  the  world  is  to  be  the  world's  light. 
This  thought,  expressed  in  words  in  the  last  chapter  (chap.  8:  12), 
and  in  this  by  deeds,  binds  together  the  different  portions  in  this  sec- 
tion of  the  Gospel.  'I  am  the  light,'  Jesus  says;  but  even  in  this 
figure  the  'we'  of  the  last  verse  may  be  remembered,  for  his  disciples 
also  'are  the  light  of  the  world'  (Matt.  5:  14).  The  first  word  of  the 
verse  is  worthy  of  all  attention,  pointing  as  it  does  to  all  periods  at 
which  'the  light'  hath  shined  amid  the  darkness  of  this  world  (chap. 
1:  5). 

Vers.  6,  7.  When  he  had  thus  spoken,  he  spat  on  the 
ground,  and  made  clay  of  the  spittle,  and  w^ith  his  clay 
anointed  his  eyes,  and  said  unto  him,  Go,  wash  in  the 
pool  of  Siloam  (which  is,  by  interpretation,  Sent).  He 
went  away  therefore,  and  w^ashed,  and  came  seeing.     In 


216  JOHN  IX.  [9:  7. 

7  clay,  and  said  unto  him,  Go,  wash  in  the  pool  of 
Siloam  (which  is  by  interpretation,  Sent).     He  went 

the  case  of  no  miracle  which  Jesus  'v^rought  is  His  procedure  as  re- 
markable as  it  is  here.  We  may  at  once  dismiss  the  thought  that  such 
a  mode  of  cure  was  in  itself  necessary :  whatever  may  have  been  the 
design  of  Jesus  in  making  use  of  it,  He  needed  no  instrument  or  means 
of  cure.  The  means  of  healing  had  in  most  cases  some  reference  to 
the  mental  condition  of  the  sufferer,  and  here  His  procedure  was  well 
fitted  to  awaken  and  make  trial  of  faith  ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  rest 
satisfied  with  any  such  explanation.  The  language  of  the  Evangelist 
compels  us  to  look  upon  the  whole  action  as  symbolical.  The  intro- 
ductory words  link  these  verses  to  those  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  the 
manifestation  of  Himself  to  the  world  (vers.  4,  5) ;  the  interpretation 
of  the  name  Siloam  leads  us  back  to  the  thought  of  Him  who  every- 
where in  this  Gospel  is  solemnly  before  us  as  'the  Sent  of  God.' 
These  indications  teach  us  to  see  in  the  whole  action  of  Jesus  a  special 
symbolical  reference  to  Himself  and  His  work.  The  anointing  of  the 
eyes  with  spittle  was  a  common  practice,  adopted  for  medicinal  effect; 
but  no  such  usage  has  any  connection  with  this  passage,  for  the  eyes 
were  anointed,  not  with  the  spittle,  but  with  the  clay.  Having  made 
the  clay.  He  anointed  'with  His  clay'  the  blind  man's  eyes.  The 
original  words  lay  emphasis  on  the  clay  made  hy  Jesus,  and  thus  bring 
Himself,  not  merely  the  clay  that  He  has  made,  but  '  His  clay,'  into 
prominence — the  clay  in  which  something  of  His  yersonality  is  ex- 
pressed. (Some  of  the  Fathers  imagine  that  there  is  a  reference  to 
Gen.  2:  7;  but  this  seems  too  remote.)  Again,  the  word  'anointed' 
no  doubt  contains  an  allusion  to  Jesus  the  Chrift,  the  Anointed  One. 
The  name  of  the  pool  Siloam  or  (according  to  the  Hebrew  form )  Siloah 
is  the  last  point  to  be  noted,  and  here  the  meaning  is  supplied  by 
John  himself.  As  originally  given  to  the  pool,  it  is  supposed  to  mean 
'sent  forth,'  i.  e.  issuing  forth,  said  of  the  waters  that  issue  from  the 
springs  that  feed  the  pool,  or  of  the  waters  which  issue  from  the  pool 
to  the  fields  around.  From  this  pool  water  had  been  drawn  to  pour 
upon  the  altar  during  the  feast  just  past  (see  chap.  7:  38);  it  was 
associated  with  the  wells  of  salvation  of  which  Isaiah  speaks  (chap. 
12:  3),  and  the  pouring  out  of  its  water  symbolized  the  effusion  of 
spiritual  blessing  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  With  most  natural  in- 
terest, therefore,  the  Evangelist  observes  that  its  very  name  corre- 
sponds to  the  Messiah  ;  and  by  pointing  out  this  fact,  indicates  to  us 
what  was  the  object  of  Jesus  in  sending  the  man  to  these  waters.  In 
this  even  more  distinctly  than  in  the  other  particulars  that  we  have 
noted,  Jesus,  whilst  sending  the  man  away  from  Him,  is  keeping  Him- 
self before  him  in  everything  connected  with  his  cure.  Thus  through- 
out the  whole  narrative  all  attention  is  concentrated  on  Jesus  Himself, 
who  is  'the  Light  of  the  world;'  who  was  'sent  of  God'  to  'open  blind 
eyes:'  every  particular  is  fraught  with  instruction  to  the  disciples, 
who  are  to  continue  His  work  after  His  departure,  and  who  must  be 


9:  8-13.]  JOHN  IX.  217 

8  away  therefore,  and  washed,  and  came  seeing.  The 
neighbors  therefore,  and  they  which  saw  him  afore- 
time, that  he  was  a  beggar,  said.  Is  not  this  he  that 

9  sat  and  begged  ?     Others  said.  It  is  he :  others  said, 

10  No,  but  he  is  like  him.  He  said,  I  am  he.  They 
said  therefore  unto  him.  How  then  were  thine  eyes 

11  opened  ?  He  answered.  The  man  that  is  called  Jesus 
made  clay,  and  anointed  mine  eyes,  and  said  unto  me, 
Go  to  Siloam,  and  wash :  so  I  went  away  and  washed, 

12  and  I  received  sight.  And  they  said  unto  him, 
Where  is  he  ?     He  saith,  I  know  not. 

Chapter.  9:  13—10:  21. 

Jesus  the  Light  separating  between  the  light  and 
the  darkness, 

13  They  bring  to  the   Pharisees  him  that  aforetime 

taught  that  they  can  bring  sight  to  the  blind  only  by  directing  them 
to  Jesus  their  Lord.  The  pool  of  Siloam,  which  still  retains  its  name 
(Silwan),  is  situated  near  the  opening  of  the  valley  of  Tyropoeon. 
See  Bible  Diet. 

Ver.  8.  The  neighbors  therefore,  and  they  -w^ho  beheld 
him  aforetime,  that  he  was  a  beggar,  said,  Is  not  this  he 
that  sat  and  begged?  The  fact  that  he  was  a  beggar  has  not  been 
mentioned  before.  Stress  is  laid  on  it  here  rather  than  on  his  blind- 
ness, because  it  was  from  his  frequenting  the  spot  for  the  purpose  of 
begging  that  he  had  become  well  known. 

Ver.  9.  Others  said.  It  is  he :  others  said,  No,  but  he  is 
like  him.  He  said,  I  am  he.  The  object  of  this  verse  and  the 
last  is  to  show  how  notorious  the  cure  became,  and  how  firmly  the 
fact  had  been  established. 

Ver.  10.  They  said  therefore  unto  him.  How  then  were 
thine  eyes  opened  ?  It  does  not  appear  that  this  was  more  than 
a  single  inquiry.  As  yet  no  element  of  malice  against  Jesus  is  intro- 
duced. 

Jesus  the  Light  separating  between  the  light  and  the  darkness, 
chap.  9:  13-10:  21. 

Contents.  The  blind  man  restored  to  sight,  ia  brought  before  the  Pharisees  with 
the  view  of  instituting  proceedings  against  Jesus,  who,  by  the  healing  on  the  Sabbath, 
had  violated  the  sanctity  of  the  day  of  rest.  But  the  process  proves  a  signal  failure, 
issuing  as  it  does  in  the  rescuing  of  the  man  from  the  Pharisaic  yoke,  and  in  a  sol- 
emn rebuke  administered  by  Jesus  to  those  who  had  placed  him  at  their  bar.     In  this 


218  JOHN  IX.  [9 :  14-16. 

14  was  blind.     Kow  it  was  the  sabbath  on  the  day  when 

15  Jesus  made  the  clay,  and  opened  his  eyes.  Again 
therefore  the  Pharisees  also  asked  him  how  he  re- 
ceived his  sight.  And  he  said  unto  them,  He  put 
clay   upon   mine   eyes,   and  I   washed,  and   do   see. 

16  Some  therefore  of  the  Pharisees  said,  This  man  is 
not  from  God,  because  he  keepeth  not  the  sabbath. 

rebuke  He  points  out  the  blindness  and  faithlessness  of  the  guides  of  Israel,  and  ex- 
plains the  nature  of  that  work  which  He,  the  Good  Shepherd,  had  to  perform  in  sav- 
ing His  own  from  shepherds  who  had  betrayed  their  trust,  and  iu  gathering  thera 
out  of  every  fold  into  His  own  flock.  The  effect  of  the  discourse  is  again  to  bring 
about  a  division  among  the  hearers.  The  subordinate  parts  of  the  section  are— (1) 
9  :  13-34 ;  (2)  9  :  35-41 ;  (3)  10  :  1-18  ;  (4;  10  :  19-21. 

Ver.  13.  They  bring  to  the  Pharisees  him  that  once  was 
blind.  They  bring  him  to  the  Pharisees  as  the  special  guardians  of 
the  religious  institutions  of  Israel.  It  is  not  at  all  likely  that  the 
man  was  brought  before  any  formal  court  or  assembly,  but  only  before 
leading  men  amongst  the  Pharisees,  who  would  at  all  times  be  ready 
to  examine  into  such  a  charge  as  is  implied  in  the  next  clause.  The 
less  formal  and  judicial  their  action  was,  the  better  does  it  illustrate 
the  conflict  of  Jesus  with  the  spirit  of  Judaism. 

Yer.  14.  Now  it  was  the  sabbath  on  the  day  when  Jesus 
made  the  clay,  and  opened  his  eyes.  It  is  very  interesting  to  com- 
pare this  verse  with  the  similar  words  in  chap.  5  :  10.  The  only  oflFence 
expressly  mentioned  there  wis  the  carrying  of  the  bed,  though  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  charge  against  Jesus  related  not  to  this  only  but 
also  to  the  performance  of  the  cure  (chap.  7 :  22).  Here  the  two 
counts  of  the  accusation  are  distinctly  presented  in  their  separation 
from  each  other, — (1)  Jesus  had  made  the  clay;  (2)  He  had  opened 
the  man's  eyes.  Another  verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  is  likewise  neces- 
sarily recalled  to  mind :  speaking  of  the  charge  of  laboring  on  the 
Sabbath,  Jesus  said  (ver.  17),  '  My  Father  worketh  until  now  :  I  also 
work.'  So  here  in  reference  to  the  same  day  He  says,  '  We  must  work 
the  works  of  Him  that  sent  me.' 

Yer.  15.  Again  therefore  the  Pharisees  also  asked  him 
how  he  had  received  his  sight ;  and  he  said  unto  them,  He 
put  clay  upon  mine  eyes,  and  I  •washed,  and  do  see.  To  his 
neighbors  and  acquaintances  his  answer  had  been  fuller  and  more  cir- 
cumstantial :  to  the  Pharisees,  whom  He  knew  to  be  the  enemies  of 
Jesus,  he  says  as  little  as  he  may,  and  does  not  even  mention  his  bene- 
factor's name. 

Yer.  16.  The  man's  answer  had  been  short  and  simple,  but  it  had 
substantiated  the  two  charges  (see  ver.  14)  that  had  been  brought. 
The  testimony  produced  the  effect  which  usually  followed  whenever 
Jesus  manifested  Himself, — some  were  attracted,  some  repelled.     Go- 


9 :  17-19.]  JOHN  IX.  219 

But  others  said,  How  can  a   man  that  is  a  sinner  do 
such  signs  ?     And  there  was  a  division  among  them. 

17  They  say  therefore  unto  the  blind  man  again,  What 
say  est  thou  of  him,  in   that   he   opened    thine   eyes  ? 

18  And  he  said,  He  is  a  prophet.  The  Jews  therefore 
did  not  believe  concerning  him,  that  he  had  been 
blind,  and   had   received  his   sight,  until  they  called 

19  the  parents  of  him  that  had  received  his  sight,  and 
asked   them,  saying,  Is    this  your   son,  who  ye   say 

det  remarks  here,  -vrith  peculiar  force  and  propriety,  '  The  one  party, 
taking  as  their  starting-point  the  inviolability  of  the  sabbatic  law,  de- 
ny to  Jesus  as  a  transgressor  of  this  law  any  divine  mission  whatever ; 
and  from  this  logically  follows  the  denial  of  the  miracle.  The  others, 
setting  out  from  the  fact  of  the  miracle,  infer  the  holy  character  of 
Jesus,  and  implicitly  deny  the  breaking  of  the  sabbath.  The  choice 
of  premiss  depends  in  this  case,  as  in  all  cases,  upon  the  moral  free- 
dom ;  it  is  at  this  point  of  departure  that  the  friends  of  light  and  the 
friends  of  darkness  separate  ;  the  rest  is  simply  a  matter  of  logic' 

Ver.  17.  They  say  therefore  unto  the  blind  man  again, 
"What  sayest  thou  of  him,  because  he  opened  thine  eyes  ? 
And  he  said,  He  is  a  prophet.  The  fact  is  admitted,  perhaps 
honestly,  for  it  will  be  observed  that,  when  we  come  to  the  next  verse, 
we  have  a  new  set  of  questioners,  and  not  simply  persons  who,  having 
made  a  concession  in  the  words  before  us,  immediately  withdraw  it. 
The  word  '  thou'  is  emphatic  :  unable  to  decide  the  matter  themselves, 
they  seek  to  draw  from  the  blind  man  some  statement  which  may  ena- 
ble them  more  effectually  to  condemn  Jesus.  But  his  answer  only 
deals  an  unexpected  blow. 

Ver.  18.  The  Jews  therefore  did  not  believe  concerning 
him  that  he  had  been  blind,  and  received  his  sight,  until 
they  called  the  parents  of  him  that  had  received  his  sight. 
The  change  from  '  the  Pharisees'  to  '  the  Jews'  is  very  striking,  and 
must  have  special  significance.  The  Pharisees  were  united  in  zeal  for 
the  law  and  in  watchfulness  over  the  rites  and  usages  of  Israel,  but 
not  in  hostility  to  Jesus  ;  we  have  just  seen  that  the  testimony  regard- 
ing the  miracle  has  divided  them  into  two  camps.  It  is  of  a  hostile 
body  only  that  the  Evangelist  is  speaking  in  this  verse.  But  there  is 
probably  another  reason  for  the  change  of  expression.  '  The  Jews'  is 
not  with  John  a  designation  of  all  the  enemies  of  Jesus ;  it  denotes  the 
representatives  of  Jewish  thought  and  action, — the  leaders  of  the  peo- 
ple, who  alas  !  were  leaders  in  the  persecution  of  our  Lord.  The  use 
of  the  word  here,  then,  leads  us  to  the  thought  that  the  dispute  had 
passed  into  a  different  stage.  So  serious  had  the  case  become  that  the 
rulers  themselves  engaged  in  it :  more  than  this, — we  have  now  done 
with  inquiry  in  any  true  sense,  and  persecution  has  taken  its  place. 


220  JOHN  IX.  [9 :  20-24. 

20  was  born  blind  ?  how  then  doth  he  now  see  ?  His 
parents  answered  and  said,  We  knoAV  that  this  is  our 

21  son,  and  that  he  was  born  blind  :  but  how  he  now 
seeth,  we  know  not ;  or  who  opened  his  eyes,  we 
know  not :  ask  him  ;  he  is  of  age  ;  he  shall  speak  for 

22  himself.  These  things  said  his  parents,  because  they 
feared  the  Jews  :  for  the  Jews  had  agreed  already, 
that  if  any  man   should  confess    him   to  be  Christ,  he 

23  should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue.     Therefore  said 

24  his  parents  ;  He  is  of  age  ;  ask  him.  So  they  called 
a  second  time  the  man  that  was  blind,  and  said  unto 
him.  Give  glory  to  God :    we  know  that   this  man 

Ver.  19.  And  asked  them  saying,  Is  this  your  son,  who 
ye  say  -was  born  blind  ?     ho-w    then    doth  he  now  see  ? 

In  the  hope  that  they  may  discover  some  flaw  in  the  man's  words, 
through  which  they  may  accuse  him  of  complicity  with  Jesus,  and, 
by  thus  destroying  the  idea  of  a  miracle,  may  become  free  to  deal  with 
Jesus  as  a  transgressor  of  the  law,  they  question  the  parents  of  the 
man. 

Ver.  20.  His  parents  therefore  answered  and  said ,  "We 
know  that  this  is  our  son,  and  that  he  was  born  blind. 
In  seeking  for  that  which  might  invalidate  the  '  sign,'  the  enemies  of 
Jesus  have  but  obtained  new  testimony  to  its  reality. 

Ver.  21.  But  how  he  no^v  seeth,  w^e  know  not;  or  w^ho 
opened  his  eyes,  we  know  not :  ask  himself;  he  is  of  age  ; 
he  shall  speak  for  himself.  The  anxious  care  of  the  parents  to 
keep  clear  of  all  testimony  to  Jesus  is  strikingly  shown  by  the  empha- 
sis thrown  on  '  himself  as  they  refer  the  questioners  to  their  son. 

Vers.  22,  23.  There  were  (at  all  events  at  a  later  period)  various 
degrees  of  excommunication  ;  but  in  any  form  it  was  a  punishment  of 
great  severity,  as  the  terror  of  the  parents  shows.  The  effect  of  the 
miLlest  grade  was  to  render  the  culprit  a  heathen  and  no  longer  an 
Israelite  during  thirty  days,  depriving  him  of  all  intercourse  with  his 
family  as  well  as  of  all  privileges  of  worship.  The  growing  alarm 
and  hatred  of  the  Jews  are  clearly  shown  by  this  compact.  We  are 
not  to  think  of  a  decree  of  the  Sanhedrin,  or  of  any  judicial  act  what- 
ever, but  of  a  private  resolution  taken  by  the  Jews  amongst  themselves. 
The  slight  change  of  translation  in  the  words  *  put  away  from  the  syn- 
agogue' is  intended  to  mark  the  fact  that  the  expression  used  here  is 
different  from  that  which  we  find  in  vers.  34,  35. 

Ver.  24.  They  called  therefore  a  second  time  the  man 
that  was  blind,  and  said  unto  him,  G-ive  glory  to  God :  w^e 
knovr  that  this  man  is  a  sinner.  In  this  second  hearing  the  aim 
of  the  Jews  is  to  overawe  the  man,  and  then  force  from  him  a  con- 


9:25-28.]  JOHN  IX.  221 

25  is  a  sinner.     He  therefore  answered,  Whether  he   be 
a    sinner,    I    know  not ;    one    thing    I    know,    that, 

26  whereas  I  was   blind,  now  I  see.     They  said  there- 
fore unto  him,  What  did    he  to   thee?    how  opened 

27  he  thine  eyes  ?     He  answered  them,  I  told  you  even 
now^,  and  ye  did  not  hear :    wherefore  Avould  ye  hear 

28  it  again  ?     would  ye  also  become  his  disciples  ?     And 

fession  that  there  had  been  some  deception  or  mistake.  This  appears 
first  in  their  vrords,  'Give  glory  to  God'  (see  Josh.  7:  19), — a  formu- 
la used  when  a  criminal  who  was  thought  to  be  concealing  the  truth 
was  urged  to  make  a  full  confession.  Remembering  that  the  eye  of 
God  was  upon  him,  let  him  give  honor  to  God  by  speaking  truth. 
Another  significant  point  is  the  emphasis  laid  on  ^we  know;'  the  au- 
thorities to  whom  he  has  been  wont  to  yield  implicit  respect  and  defe- 
rence in  all  religious  matters,  possessed  of  deeper  insight  and  wider 
knowledge  than  himself,  (do  not  think  merely,  but)  know  that  Jesus  is 
a  breaker  of  the  law,  and  therefore  cannot  have  wrought  a  miracle. 

Ver.  25.  He  therefore  ans-wered,  Whether  he  be  a  sinner, 
I  know  not :  one  thing  I  kno^v,  that,  whereas  I  w^as  blind, 
now  I  see,  His  simplicity  leaves  them  no  real  excuse  for  condemn- 
ing :  by  his  steadfast  adherence  to  the  one  testimony  which  he  alone 
was  competent  to  render,  he  most  effectually  brings  condemnation  on 
his  judges,  who,  had  they  been  sincere,  would  first  have  sought  cer- 
tain knowledge  of  the  fact. 

Ver.  26.  They  said  therefore  to  him,  What  did  he  to  thee  ? 
how  opened  he  thine  eyes  ?  Every  attempt  to  overthrow  the 
fact  has  failed  :  possibly  renewed  inquiry  as  to  the  mode  of  cure  may 
disclose  something  that  may  be  used  against  Jesus.  But  the  man  has 
now  perceived  their  design :  they  are  not  seeking  the  truth,  and  he 
will  be  the  tool  of  no  such  judges  as  they  are  proving  themselves 
to  be. 

Ver.  27.  He  answered  them,  I  have  told  you  already,  and 
ye  did  not  hear:  w^herefore  would  ye  hear  it  again?  would 
ye  also  become  his  disciples?  The  words  'ye  did  not  hear' 
mean  that  they  had  not  believed  what  they  heard.  The  last  clause  is 
a  little  ambiguous  in  English.  The  meaning  is  Do  ye  also  desire,  to 
become  His  disciples?  'Ye also,'  may  mean  'ye  as  well  as  others;'  but 
it  most  naturally  signifies  'as  well  as  myself,'  the  blind  beggar.  The 
obstinate  enmity  of  the  Jews  impels  him  to  avow  his  own  disciple- 
ship. 

Ver.  28.  And  they  reviled  him,  and  said,  Thou  art  his 
disciple,  but  we  are  Moses'  disciples.  Whether  the  man  dis- 
tinctly intended  such  reference  to  himself  or  not,  it  is  thus  that  they  un- 
derstood his  words  :  and  this  moves  them  contemptuously  to  contrast 
•  that  man '  with  their  greatest  prophet,  Moses. 


222  4  JOHN  IX.  [9:  29-34. 

they   reviled  him,  and    said,  Thou  art  his   disciple : 

29  but  we  are  disciples  of  Moses.  We  know  that  God 
hath  spoken  unto  Moses :  but  as  for  this  man,  we 

30  know  not  whence  he  is.  The  man  answered  and  said 
unto  them,  Why,  herein  is  the  marvel,  that  ye  know 
not   whence   he   is,  and   yet   he   opened    mine   eyes. 

31  We  know  that  God  heareth  not  sinners :  but  if  any 
man  be  a  worshipper  of  God,  and  do  his  will,  him  he 

32  heareth.  Since  the  world  began  it  was  never  heard 
that  any  one  opened  the  eyes  of  a  man  born  blind. 

33  If  this  man  were  not  from  God,  he  could  do  nothing. 

34  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Thou  wast  alto- 
gether born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us  ?  And 
they  cast  him  out. 

Ver.  29.  We  know  that  God  hath  spoken  unto  Moses ; 
but  as  for  this  man  -we  kno^v  not  from  -whence  he  is.     In 

holding  by  the  law  of  Moses,  then,  they  are  safe,  and  are  assured  that 
they  are  doing  the  will  of  God.  If  they  do  not  know  the  origin  of 
'  this  man,'  he  can  be  worthy  of  no  regard ;  certainly  he  cannot  be 
from  God  ! 

Vers.30-33.  Herein  lies  the  very  marvel — that  even  ye,  (1)  know- 
ing that  no  man  ever  receives  power  to  do  any  miracle  unless  he  be  a 
worshipper  of  God  and  one  that  does  His  will ;  and  (2)  having  proof 
that  this  man  has  done  a  miracle — yes,  and  such  a  miracle  as  has 
never  before  been  wrought — will  not  see  the  conclusion  that  must  fol- 
low, viz.,  that  this  man  does  the  will  of  God;  that  he  is  no  sinner, 
but  comes  from  God  (see  the  note  on  ver.  16).  The  man  has  assumed 
the  office  of  a  teacher,  and  has  so  taught  that  they  have  no  counter 
argument  to  offer;  *  the  wise  are  taken  in  their  own  craftiness'  (Job 
5:  13). 

Ver.  34.  They  answered  and  said  unto  him,  Thou  wast 
altogether  born  in  sins,  and  dost  thou  teach  us?  And 
they  put  him  out.  The  original  is  very  graphic:  In  sins  wast 
thou  born,  and  thou,  dost  thou  teach  us?  There  is  probably  a  distinct 
reference  to  the  belief  which  is  expressed  in  ver.  2 ;  the  fact  that  in 
their  passion  they  are  thus  acknowledging  the  reality  of  the  miracle 
is  no  argument  against  such  a  reference  :  the  man's  whole  condition, 
as  evinced  by  his  spirit  and  his  words,  bears  yet  stronger  testimony 
than  his  blindness,  and  shows  that  he  was  altogether  born  in  sins. 
The  last  clause  probably  refers  to  ejection  from  the  place  in  which  the 
inquiry  was  held  ;  but  the  next  verse  seems  to  prove  that  excommu- 
nication followed  this.  Cast  out  by  the  rulers  from  their  place  of 
meeting,  he  was  cast  out  from  all  intercourse  with  them,  and  from 


9 :  35-37.]  JOHN  IX.  -  223 

35  Jesus  heard  that  they  had  cast  him  out :  and  finding 
him,  he  said,  Dost  thou  believe  on  4he  Son  of  God? 

36  He  answered  and  said,  And  who  is  he.  Lord,  that  I 

37  may  believe  on  him  ?     Jesus  said  unto  him,  Thou 

I  Many  ancient  authorities  read  the  Son  of  man. 

the  community  over  wliich  they  ruled.  Such  was  the  only  reasoning 
which  could  be  opposed  to  the  triumphant  argument  of  the  man  born 
blind ! 

Ver.  35.  Jesus  heard  that  they  had  put  him  out :  and 
■when  he  had  found  him,  he  said,  Dost  thou  believe  in  the 
Son  of  man  ?  The  man  has  lost  this  world ;  in  that  loss  he  shall 
gain  the  next.  Jesus  knows  well  the  firmness  and  the  wisdom  which 
the  man  had  shown  in  the  presence  of  the  Jews.  But  He  knows  also 
that  the  man  had  by  implication  avowed  himself  His  disciple,  and  for 
this  had  been  thrust  out  from  the  presence  of  the  rulers.  For  this 
very  reason  Jesus  would  draw  the  bond  of  discipleship  closer,  and 
receive  amongst  His  own  him  whom  the  Jews  rejected.  He  seeks  for 
the  man,  and,  having  found  him,  asks,  Dost  thou  believe  in  the  Son 
of  man?  The  word  'thou'  is  emphatic,  and  brings  into  relief  the 
contrast  with  those  in  whose  presence  he  has  lately  been,  who  declared 
Jesus  a  sinner,  and  who  had  agreed  that  whoever  confessed  that  Jesus 
was  Christ  should  be  excommunicated.  The  name  'Son  of  man'  is 
equivalent  to  'the  Christ,'  but  gives  prominence  to  the  human  nature 
of  the  Deliverer.  This  name  therefore  is  altogether  in  harmony  with 
the  man's  own  words  (vers.  31-33),  in  which  he  had  spoken  of  Jesus 
as  a  worshipper  of  God  and  one  who  did  God's  will,  one  to  whom  God 
would  hearken:  to  hira  Jesu",  though  'from  God'  (ver.  33),  was  still 
'a  prophet'  (ver.  17)  and  'the  man  called  Jesus'  (ver.  11).  Has  he 
then  true  faith  in  the  Messiah,  in  whose  cause  he  has  been  suffering  ? 
Does  he  give  himself  to  Him  with  that  faith  which  involves  complete 
union  with  Himself  and  His  cause,  undeterred  by  the  fact  that  He 
appears  as  a  man  amongst  men,  yea  and  as  one  despised  and  rejected 
by  men  ?  The  ordinary  reading  '  Son  of  God '  i"  in  all  probability  in- 
correct. It  is  easy  to  see  how  it  might  accidentally  find  its  way  into 
the  text,  being  suggested  partly  by  the  usual  practice  of  John  (who 
frequently  joins  'believe  in'  either  with  the  Son  of  God  or  with  a 
name  of  similar  import],  and  partly  by  the  act  of  worship  related  in 
ver.  38. 

Ver.  36.  He  answered  and  said,  And  who  is  he,  Lord, 
that  I  may  believe  in  him?  These  are  not  words  of  a  doubter, 
but  of  one  who  seeks  to  be  led  to  a  complete  faith.  In  Jesus  he  has 
fullest  confidence,  and  he  waits  only  lo  hear  His  declaration,  respecting 
the  'Son  of  man;'  as  such  Jesus  has  not  yet  manifested  Himself 
to  him. 

Yer.  37.  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Thou  hast  both  seen  him, 
and  he  that  speaketh  with  thee  is  he.     The  manifestation  is 


224  JOHN  IX.  [9:  38-40. 

hast  both  seen  him,  and  he  it  is  that  speaketh  with 

38  thee.     And  he  said,  Lord,  I  believ^e.     And  he  wor- 

39  shipped  him.    And  Jesus  said,  For  judgement  came  I 
into  this  Avorld,  that  they  which  see  not  may  see;  and 

40  that  they  w^hich  see  may  become  blind.     Those  of  the 

now  given;  both  in  word  ('he  that  speaketh')  and  in  the  half-veiled, 
yet  clear,  reference  to  the  work  that  had  been  wrought  on  him  ('thou 
hast  seen  Him ' )  in  the  gift  of  physical  (and  we  may  certainly  add 
spiritual)  eyesight. 

Yer.  38.  And  he  said,  I  believe,  Lord;  and  he  worshipped 
him.  The  simple  and  immediate  answer  shows  how  little  remained 
to  be  done  to  make  his  faith  complete.  Not  with  bodily  senses  only, 
but  in  his  heart,  he  has  seen  Jesus;  he  has  heard  His  word;  he  be- 
lieves and  worships  the  Son  of  man,  the  Messiah,  his  Lord.  In  this 
man,  therefore,  Jesus  has  manifested  Himself  as  'Light  of  the  world' 
(ver.  5).  But  of  this  manifestation  there  are  two  opposite  results ; 
the  Light  will  attract  some  out  of  the  darkness ;  the  Light  will  repel 
others  into  yet  deeper  darkness.  The  newly  found  disciple  is  an  ex- 
ample of  the  one  work,  the  hardened  Jews  of  the  other.  Of  these 
conti-asted  results  Jesus  Himself  here  speaks. 

Ver.  39.  And  Jesus  said,  For  a  judgment  came  I  into  this 
■world,  that  they  -which  see  not  may  see,  and  that  they 
which  see  may  become  blind.  The  rendering  '  a  judgment ' 
may  serve  to  remind  us  of  the  fact  that  our  Lord  (here  using  a  word 
which  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel)  does  not  speak  of  the 
act  of  judging,  but  of  the  result.  He  does  not  sfiy  that  He  came  in 
order  to  judge,  but  that  the  necessary  effect  of  His  coming  into  this 
world — a  world  alienated  from  God — will  be  a  judgment.  Those  that 
see  not  (the  'babes'  of  Matt.  11 :  25)  come  to  Him  for  sight:  those 
that  see  (the  'wise  and  prudent'),  who  know  the  laAV  and  are  satisfied 
with  that  knowledge,  and  who,  having  all  the  guidance  which  should 
have  led  them  to  Christ,  do  not  come,  'become  blind' — lose  all  light 
through  losing  Him.  Knowledge  which  has  priceless  value  for  point- 
ing the  way  to  Christ  becomes  accursed  if  put  in  His  place  as  an  ob- 
ject of  trust.  It  is  possible  that,  as  the  word  'judge'  seems  elsewhere 
in  this  Gospel  always  to  have  the  force  of  a  condemning  judgment, 
this  sense  should  be  preserved  here  also :  in  the  one  case,  the  judg- 
ment is  passed  on  acknowledged  blindness,  for  they  themselves  who 
come  to  the  light  pass  a  condemnation  on  the  blindness  of  their  past 
state;  in  the  other,  judgment  is  passed  upon  supposed  (or  rather 
upon  misused)  sight.  Thus  both  classes  have  a  part  in  the  'judgment:' 
the  one  by  appropriating  as  just  the  judgment  of  Jesus  on  their  blind- 
ness apart  from  Him  ;  the  other  by  deliberately  shutting  their  eyes  to 
the  true  light.  The  result  of  this  wilful  action  is  utter  blindness — 
not  merely  a  disuse  of  sight,  but  a  destruction  of  the  power  of  sight. 

Ver.  40.     Those   of  the   Pharisees  who  were   w^ith   him 


9:  41—10:  1.]  JOHN  IX.  225 

Pharisees  which  were  with  him  heard  these  things, 
41  and  said  unto  him,  Are  we  also  blind  ?  Jesus  said 
unto  them,  If  ye  were  blind,  ye  w^ould  have  no  sin : 
but  now  ye  say.  We  see :  your  sin  remaineth. 
10:  1  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He  that  entereth, 
not  by  the  door  into  the  fold  of  the  sheep,  but  climb- 
eth  up  some  other  way,  the  same  is  a  thief  and  a 

heard  these  things.  The  whole  cast  of  the  language  here  used 
shows  that  those  who  speak  are  not  representatives  of  the  Pharisees 
as  a  body,  or  of  the  Pharisaic  spirit  in  its  worst  characteristics.  But 
lately  there  has  been  a  division  of  feeling  among  the  Pharisees  in  re- 
gard to  Jesus  (ver.  16).  Some  who  were  then  impressed  by  His  signs 
may  have  already  become  disciples ;  others  may  have  remained  in  a 
state  of  uncertainty,  impressed,  but  not  convinced — not  brought  to 
the  point  of  'leaving  all'  their  possessions  of  'wisdom  and  prudence,' 
and  following  Him.  It  may  be  that  those  spoken  of  here  were  of  such 
a  description.  No  one,  probably,  who  duly  apprehends  the  difference 
in  the  usage  of  John  between  'the  Pharisees'  and  'the  Jews,'  will 
think  that  necessarily  these  words  were  uttered  in  derision,  or  that 
these  men  were  'with  Him'  as  enemies  and  spies. — And  said  unto 
him,  Are  we  blind  also  ?  There  had  been  an  apparent  difficulty 
in  the  words  of  Jesus.  He  spoke  of  two  classes,  distinguished  in 
their  character  as  not  seeing  and  seeing ;  in  their  future  lot,  as  re- 
ceiving sight  and  becoming  blind.  The  future  lot  is  the  result  of  the 
coming  of  Jesus  into  this  world.  It  is  very  clear  that  He  means  that 
those  who  see  not  (like  the  despised  blind  man  who  has  just  been 
'put  out')  will  come  to  Him  and  obtain  sight  from  Him.  But  what 
of  the  Pharisees,  whom  He  invites  to  come?  Does  He  class  them  also 
among  those  who  'see  not'?  Surely,  (they  think)  this  cannot  be  His 
meaning.  And  yet,  if  not,  Pharisees  are  excluded  from  all  hope  of 
blessing,  for  His  words  speak  of  but  two  classes. 

Ver.  41.  Jesus  said  unto  them,  If  ye  -were  blind,  ye  w^ould 
not  have  sin  :  but  now  ye  say,  We  see  ;  your  sin  abideth. 
If  ye  were  really  blind,  unable  to  open  your  eyes  to,  and  indeed  un- 
conscious of,  the  existence  of  the  light  now  shining  round  you,  the 
sin  of  rejection  of  the  light  would  not  lie  at  your  door.  But  it  is  not 
80.  They  are  their  own  judges.  They  themselves  say :  We  see;  and 
yet  they  come  not  to  Him,  Their  sin  abideth ;  they  are  guilty  of  that 
sin,  and  so  long  as  they  refuse  to  come  to  Him,  the  sin  must  abide. 
So  at  the  close  of  chap.  3  we  read :  '  He  that  disobeyeth  the  Son  shall 
not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him.' 

Chap.  10,  vers.  1,  2.    Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  He  that 

entereth  not  by  the  door  into  the  fold  of  the  sheep,  but 

climbeth  up  from  some   other  quarter,  the  same  is  a  thief 

and  a  robber.     But  he  that  entereth  in  by  the  door  is  a 

15 


226  JOHN  X.  [10:2,3. 

2  robber.     But   he   that   eutereth    in   by   the   door   is 

3  'the   shepherd   of  the   sheep.      To   him   the   porter 

1  Or,  a  shepherd. 

shepherd  of  the  sheep.  The  opening  words  are  of  themselves 
sufficient  to  show  that  this  chapter  must  be  very  closely  joined  to 
that  which  precedes,  for  nowhere  in  this  Gospel  do  we  find  a  new 
discoui-se  introduced  by  'Verily,  verily,  1  say  unto  you.'  The  thought 
of  the  Jews,  who  with  their  authoritative  dictum,  '  We  know'  (9  :  24, 
29)  sought  to  hinder  men  of  'the  multituie'  from  coming  to  Christ, 
underlies  the  whole  parable,  and  forms  the  chief  link  binding  the 
chapters  together.  In  the  last  verses  of  chap.  9  the  action  of  the  un- 
believing rulers  is  contemplated  in  its  bearing  upon  themselves;  here 
in  its  bearing  upon  those  of  whom  the  Jews  were  the  recognised 
leaders.  The  figure  used  is  taken  from  the  very  heart  of  the  Old 
Testament  Dispensation.  Again  and  again  do  the  prophets  utter  lan- 
guage of  scathing  indignation  against  unfaithful  shepherds  who  'feed 
themselves  and  not  their  flocks;'  and  more  frequently  still  is  the  ten- 
der care  of  the  good  shepherd  portrayed.  The  Messiah  Himself  is 
represented  under  this  character  in  several  prophetic  passages :  two 
chapters  especially,  Ezek.  34  and  Zech.  11  (in  each  of  which  the  con- 
trasted types  of  shepherd  are  represented  and  the  Messiah  brought 
definitely  into  view),  must  be  kept  before  us  as  we  follow  the  course  of 
this  parable.  The  '  fold'  of  the  sheep  was  a  large  open  space  enclosed 
by  a  paling  or  by  walls  of  no  great  height :  ingress  or  egress  was 
given  only  by  a  door  kept  by  a  porter,  who  is  not  to  be  confounded 
with  the  shepherd  for  the  protection  of  whose  flocks  the  fold  was  used. 
All  other  points  the  narrative  itself  will  bring  out.  In  the  first  few 
verses  the  language  is  altogether  general.  A  comparison  is  drawn  be- 
tween all  shepherds  of  the  flock  and  false  and  treacherous  intru- 
ders into  the  fold.  The  application  which  makes  to  Himself  of  two  of 
the  figures  in  these  opening  verses  does  not  yet  come  before  the  mind. 
The  sheep  are  safe  in  the  fold :  there  the  narrative  commences.  We 
do  not  read  how  or  by  whom  or  whence  they  were  brought  into  that 
fold  for  protection  amidst  the  dangers  of  the  night.  In  the  morning 
the  shepherds  will  come  to  lead  forth  their  flocks,  and  having  an  ac- 
knowledged right  of  entrance  will  go  in  at  the  door.  Should  any  one 
bent  on  entering  the  fold  not  come  to  the  door,  but  climb  over  the 
fence  and  thus  get  in  'some  other  way'  (literally,  from  some  other 
quarter),  his  aim  is  evil, — he  wishes  to  get  possession  of  sheep  or  of  a 
flock  to  which  he  has  no  right, — he  is  therefore  a  thief  and  a  robber, 
a  man  determined  either  by  craft  or  by  violence  to  win  spoil  for  him- 
self. *  Entering  by  the  door,'  then,  is  the  first  markl)y  which  a  right- 
ful shepherd  is  distinguished  from  a  man  of  selfish  and  treacherous 
ends. 

Ver.  3.  To  him  the  porter  openeth  :  and  the  sheep  hear 
his  voice  :  and  he  calleth  his  ovrn  sheep  by  name,  and 
leadeth  them  out.      This   verse   gives  other  marks   which  indi- 


10:  4.]  JOHN  X.  227 

openeth  :  and  the  sheep  hear  his  voice  :    and  he  call- 

eth  his   own   sheep  by  name,  and  leadeth  them  out. 

4  When  he  hath  put  forth  all  his  own,  he  goeth  before 

cate  a  true  shepherd.  The  keeper  of  the  gate  recognises  him  and 
gives  him  entrance.  The  sheep  in  the  enclosure  show  at  once  that 
they  are  familiar  with  his  voice.  The  sheep  of  his  own  particular 
flock  he  knows  by  name,  and  he  calls  them  one  by  one.  He  has 
come  in  fur  their  benefit  and  not  his  own,  to  lead  them  forth  to  pas- 
turage. To  none  of  these  indications  does  he  answer  who  is  an  in- 
truder and  no  shepherd.  What  travellers  tell  us  of  the  relation  of  an 
Eastern  shepherd  to  his  flock  shows  how  true  to  nature  was  the  lan- 
guage of  these  verses.  It  is  by  his  voice  that  the  shepherd  is  rocog- 
nised:  he  calls  and  the  sheep  come  around  him.  In  every  flock  there 
are  some  to  whom  he  has  given  particular  names,  and  who  are  wont  to 
keep  near  him  ;  every  one  of  these  knows  his  own  name  and  comes  to 
the  shepherd  when  that  name  is  called.  In  this  last  feature  the  lan- 
guage of  the  parable  may  go  beyond  common  experience.  Such  a 
shepherd  as  our  Lord  describes  knows  and  calls  every  one  of  his  sheep 
by  name.  It  is  sometimes,  indeed,  maintained  that  no  distinction 
ought  to  be  made  between  '  the  sheep  '  of  the  first  clause  and  '  His  own 
sheep'  in  the  clause  that  follows.  But  this  is  surely  a  mistake,  re- 
sulting from  the  premature  application  of  these  words  to  Him  who 
is  '  the  Good  Shepherd.'  He  no  doubt  knows  by  name  every  sheep 
of  every  flock :  as  yet,  however,  we  have  before  us  not  the  Shepherd 
but  every  one  who  is  a  shepherd  cf  the  sheep.  There  is  some  diffi- 
culty in  determining  who  is  meant  by  the  'porter'  of  this  verse. 
Many  explanations  have  been  given,  but  there  are  only  two  that  seem 
really  to  agree  with  the  conditions  of  the  context.  The  keeper  of  the 
door  recognises  any  rightful  shepherd,  and  especially  the  True  Shep- 
herd (ver.  11),  but  closes  the  way  to  self-seekers, — and  this  during  all 
that  time  of  waiting  of  which  we  have  yet  to  speak.  He  cannot,  there- 
fore, be  either  Moses  or  John  the  Baptist ;  the  thought  of  Divine  care  is 
necessary.  We  must  thus  think  either  of  Christ  Himself  or  of  the  Fa- 
ther or  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To  refer  the  term,  however,  to  the  first  of 
these  would  be  to  confuse  the  parable  :  it  must  belong  to  one  of  the 
two  latter, — the  Father,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  who  gave  and  watched  over 
the  promises,  who  called  and  qualified  the  prophets  of  Israel.  Perhaps 
ver.  15,  in  which  Jesus  speaks  of  the  Father's  recognition  of  Himself, 
makes  the  first  of  these  two  the  more  probable.  The  tenor  of  chap. 
6  also,  in  which  there  is  repeated  mention  of  the  Father's  work  in  re- 
lation to  the  work  of  Jesus,  confirms  this  view;  and  a  further  con- 
firmation may  be  found  in  the  parable  of  chap.  15,  in  which  Jesus 
represents  Himself  as  the  vine  and  His  Father  as  the  husbandman. 

Ver.  4.  "When  he  hath  put  out  all  his  o-wn  sheep,  he  goeth 
before  them,  and  the  sheep  follow  him:  for  they  know  his 
voice.  The  first  words  take  up  the  thought  contained  in  the  words 
that  immediately  precede  ('and  leadeth  them  out'},  but  express  it 


228  JOHN  X.  [10:  5,6. 

them,  and  the  sheep  follow  him  :  for  they  know  his 

5  voice.  And  a  stranger  will  they  not  follow,  but  will 
flee  from  him  :  for  they  know  not  the  voice  of  stran- 

6  gers.  This  Sparable  spake  Jesus  unto  them :  but 
they  understood,  not  what  things  they  were  which 
he  spake  unto  them. 

1  Or,  proverb. 

with  greater  force.  The  shepherd  leads  forth  all  his  own  sheep, — not 
one  is  left  behind.  But  the  change  from  leading  out  to  putting  out  is 
remarkable.  In  the  figure  it  may  refer  to  the  solicitude  of  the  shep- 
herd to  remove  every  sheep  under  his  care  from  the  fold  in  which  it 
is  not  well  that  any  should  longer  remain  :  some  may  be  slow  in  fol- 
lowing his  lead,  but  he  sees  that  none  shall  be  overlooked.  The  real 
significance  of  this  word,  however,  is  connected  with  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  parable  (see  below)  :  for  we  cannot  doubt  that  our  Lord 
designedly  uses  here  that  very  word  which  was  employed  to  denote 
expulsion  from  the  synagogue,  and  which  has  already  met  us  in  two 
consecutive  verses  of  the  previous  chapter  (34,  35),  when  the  treat- 
ment received  from  the  Jews  by  the  man  born  blind  is  described.  In 
this  verse  again  we  find  complete  faithfulness  of  description.  To  this 
day  the  Eastern  shepherd  goes  before  his  flock,  leading,  not  driving 
the  sheep,  and  keeping  them  near  him  through  their  recognition  of 
his  voice. 

Ver.  5.  But  a  stranger  will  they  not  follow,  butwill  flee 
from  him:  for  they  know  not  the  voice  of  strangers.  The 
'stranger'  is  not  one  to  whom  the  porter  has  opened  (for  the  voice  of 
every  one  who  is  thus  admitted  is  familiar  to  all  the  sheep)  ;  he  must 
therefore  have  entered  by  some  other  way,  and  he  is  in  the  fold  as  *  a 
thief  and  a  robber.'  No  mark  of  a  true  shepherd  is  found  in  him. 
He  has  not  entered  by  the  door,  and  he  has  not  been  recognised  by 
the  keeper  of  the  door;  the  sheep  do  not  know  his  voice;  he  cannot 
call  them  by  their  names  ;  his  object  is  not  their  good,  but  his  own 
spoil  and  gain.  Lead  a  flock  forth  he  cannot ;  the  sheep  flee  from 
him. 

Ver.  6.  This  parable  said  Jesus  unto  them  :  but  they 
understood  not  what  things  they  were  which  he  spake 
unto  them.  The  word  here  used  is  not  that  which  occurs  so  fre- 
quently in  the  other  Gospels  in  the  sense  of  parable.  It  is  found  but 
four  times  in  the  New  Testament— in  2  Pet.  2:  22,  and  in  three  verses 
of  this  Gospel  (here  and  chap.  16 :  25,  29).  In  2  Pet.  2  :  22  the  word 
has  its  ordinary  signification  'proverb:'  in  chap.  16  :  29  it  is  opposed 
to  speaking  in  the  way  the  most  direct — the  highest  and  best  for  the  at- 
tainment of  the  speaker's  end  (comp.  on  16:  25).  The  derivation  of 
the  word  suggests  that  the  primary  meaning  was  a  saying  beside  or  out 
of  the  common  way  which  had  not  the  direct  plain  bearing  of  an  ordi- 


10:  7.]  JOHN  X.  229 

7      Jesus   therefore    said    unto    them    again,  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  I  am  the  door  of  the  sheep. 

nary  saying,  but  either  was  intended  to  have  many  applications  (as  a 
proverb),  or  was  in  some  degree  circuitous  in  the  method  by  which  it 
effected  its  purpose,  —  enigmatical  or  diihcult.  In  this  latter  sense 
John  seems  to  use  the  word,  which  does  not  therefore  differ  essentially 
from  the  'parable,'  as  that  word  is  used  by  the  other  Evangelists  (see 
Matt.  13:  11-15).  It  seems  certain  that  had  any  one  of  them  related 
the  comparison  of  this  chapter  he  would  have  employed  the  more  fa- 
miliar name.  The  Septuagint  uses  the  two  words  with  little  difference 
of  sense. 

Yer.  7.  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them  again,  Verily,  ver- 
ily, I  say  unto  you,  I  am  the  door  of  the  sheep.  The  formu- 
la which  introduced  the  parable  (ver.  1)  now  brings  in  the  interpreta- 
tion. This  interpretation  is  given  in  two  parts, — or,  as  perhaps  we 
ought  rather  to  say,  two  distinct  applications  of  the  parable  are  given: 
the  two  most  important  points  in  the  figure  are  taken  in  succession, 
and  in  each  aspect  the  parable  finds  its  fulfilment  in  the  Lord  Jesus. 
But  as  the  formula  which  introduces  this  verse  is  not  repeated  in  ver. 
11,  it  is  more  correct  to  divide  vers.  1-18  into  two  parts  (1-6,  7-18 — 
the  latter  being  subdivided  at  ver.  11)  than  into  three.  First,  .Jesus 
declares  Himself  to  be  the  'door  of  the  sheep,' — that  is,  not  the  door 
by  which  the  sheep  enter  into  the  fold,  but  the  door  through  which 
they  will  leave  the  fold  at  the  call  of  the  Shepherd,  and  (though  this 
is  not  particularly  specified  until  ver.  9)  through  which  a  shepherd 
enters  to  his  sheep.  The  whole  description  of  vers.  1-5  must  be  in- 
terpreted in  harmony  with  this  word  of  Jesus.  If  He  is  the  Door, 
what  is  the  fold  ? — who  are  the  sheep  ?  To  answer  these  questions  we 
must  look  forward  to  a  later  verse  (ver,  16) :  'And  other  sheep  I  have 
which  are  not  of  this  fold ;  them  also  I  must  lead,  and  they  shall  hear 
my  voice,  and  they  shall  become  one  flock,  one  shepherd.'  That  Jesus 
here  speaks  of  the  heathen  world  few  will  doubt ;  and  if  so,  it  is  very 
clear  that  in  ver.  1  the  Jewish  Church  is  intended  by  '  the  fold  of  the 
sheep.'  Not  that  all  who  are  found  within  the  pale  of  Judaism  belong 
to  'the  sheep'  of  which  Jesus  speaks.  The  sheep  are  those  who  hear 
a  true  shepherd's  voice;  and  we  may  so  far  forestall  ver.  11  as  to  say 
that  none  are  included  under  this  designation  who  refuse  to  hear  the 
voice  of  Jesus  Himself.  '  The  sheep '  are  therefore  those  who  in  other 
passages  are  described  as  'of  God'  (see  chap,  8:  47),  and  'of  the  truth,' 
(chap,  lb:  37),  and  the  'fold'  is  the  Jewish  Church  in  so  far  as  that 
Church  has  sheltered  these  until  the  fulness  of  time  has  come.  Then, 
and  not  till  then,  shall  the  sheep  be  led  out  of  the  fold  into  the  fi-ee 
open  pastures  :  then,  too,  the  '  other  sheep'  will  be  brought,  and  there 
shall  be,  not  two  flocks  but  one,  under  one  Shepherd.  It  will  be  seen 
that  in  no  part  of  this  parable  are  the  sheep  said  to  return  to  the  fold  ; 
the  shepherds  only  are  spoken  of  as  entering  in,  and  that  for  the  pur- 
pose of  leading  out  their  flocks.      In  saying,  'I  am  the  door  of  the 


230  JOHN  X.  [10:  7. 

sheep,'  therefore,  Jesus  says  in  eifect  — (1)  that  through  Him  alone 
has  any  true  guardian  and  guide  of  the  sheep  entered  into  the  fold  ; 
(2)  that  through  Him  alone  will  the  sheep  within  the  'fold'  be  led  out 
into  the  open  pastures.  The  latter  thought  is  easily  understood  ;  it 
presents  the  same  promise  of  the  gladness  and  freedom  and  life  of 
Messianic  times  as  was  set  forth  by  the  symbols  of  the  feast  of  Taber- 
nacles in  the  seventh  and  eighth  chapters.  Then  the  figures  were  the 
pouring  out  of  water  and  the  lighting  of  the  golden  lamps  :  the  figure 
now  is  very  diffei-ent,  but  (as  we  have  seen)  equally  familiar  in  Old 
Testament  prophecy.  Not  until  Messiah  shall  come  will  the  night  of 
patient  waiting  cease,  and  the  fold  be  seen  to  have  been  only  a  tempo- 
rary shelter,  not  a  lasting  home.  The  application  of  the  words  before 
us  to  the  shepherds  is  more  difficult ;  for  when  we  consider  how  this 
chapter  is  connected  with  the  last,  it  is  plain  that  Jesus  adverts  to  the 
presence  within  the  fold  of  some  who  are  not  true  shepherds.  They 
have  climbed  up  from  some  other  quarter,  and  are  in  the  fold  to  gratify 
their  own  selfishness  and  greed,  not  to  benefit  the  flock.  How  then 
can  it  be  said  of  them  that  they  did  not  enter  through  the  Door — /.  e., 
through  our  Lord  Himself?  In  answering  this  question  it  seems  plain 
that  we  have  here  a  saying  akin  to  that  of  chap.  8:  56,  or  12:  41,  or 
to  that  of  Heb.  11 :  26,  in  which  Moses  is  said  to  have  esteemed  'the 
reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treasures  in  Egypt.'  The 
leading  characteristic  of  preceding  ages  had  been  that  they  were  a 
time  of  preparation  for  the  Christ,  that  during  them  the  promise  and 
hope  of  the  Christ  had  stood  in  the  place  of  His  personal  presence. 
The  object  of  every  ruler  in  the  Jewish  Church,  and  of  every  teacher 
of  the  Jewish  people,  should  have  been  to  point  forward  to  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah;  and  each  should  have  used  all  his  power  and  influ- 
ence, not  for  himself,  but  to  prepare  for  the  event  in  which  the  Jewish 
Chui-ch  was  to  culminate  and  (in  an  important  sense)  come  to  an  end, 
giving  place  to  the  Church  Universal.  The  rulers  brought  before  us  in 
the  last  chapter  had  done  the  reverse  ;  in  no  true  sense  had  they  pre- 
pared for  the  Christ :  and  when  the  Christ  appeared,  so  far  from  re- 
ceiving Him,  they  had  combined  together  to  put  away  from  the  Church 
in  which  they  bore  rule  every  one  who  acknowledged  that  Jesus  was 
He.  Hence,  accordingly,  the  strong  language  of  ver.  1.  These 
teachers  had  'climbed  up  from  another  quarter,'  instead  of  entering  by 
the  Door.  They  had  been  marked  by  a  spirit  of  self-exaltation,  of 
earthly  Satanic  pride;  they  had  appeared  as  the  enemies  of  God,  had 
refused  to  submit  themselves  to  His  plans,  had  sought  not  His  glory 
but  their  own ;  their  aims  had  been  thoroughly  selfish,  devilish  ;  they 
were  of  their  father  the  devil  (8  :  44).  Thus,  also,  we  see  that  the 
term  'a  thief  and  a  robber,'  applied  to  such  teachers  in  ver,  1,  is  not 
too  strong,  for  they  had  perverted  the  whole  object  of  the  theocracy; 
they  had  made  that  an  end  which  was  only  designed  to  be  a  means, 
and  had  done  this  as  men  who  had  blinded  themselves  to  the  true 
light,  and  were  using  the  flock  of  God  as  instruments  for  their  own 
aggrandisement.  They  were  in  the  fold,  but  they  had  not  entered 
throught  the  door. 


10 :  8,  9.]  JOHN  X.  231 

8  All  that  came  before  me*  are  thieves  and  robbers: 

9  but  the  sheep  did  not  hear  them.     I  am  the  door : 

*  "before  me"  add  marg.    Some  ancient  authorities  omit  before  me. — Am.  Com. 

Ver.  8.  All  that  came  before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers: 
but  the  sheep  did  not  hear  them.  In  the  similitude  of  the  door, 
Jesus  had  declared  that  it  was  through  Him  alone  that  the  flocks 
could  come  out  of  the  Jewish  fold  into  the  pastures  into  which  they 
had  longed  to  enter ;  and  this  was  a  truth  not  depending  only  upon 
His  proclamation  of  it,  but  lying  in  the  very  essence  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment dispensation.  The  prophecies  had  fixed  the  thoughts  of  all  true 
Israelites  on  'Him  that  cometh,'  and  had  shown  them  that  until  His 
coming  their  hopes  could  not  be  fulfilled.  But  some  had  forgotten 
this,  and  had  falsely  claimed  the  place  that  belonged  to  Jesus,  each 
deceiver  pretending  that  he  himself  was  the  medium  through  which 
God's  people  were  to  be  led  to  the  satisfaction  of  their  hopes.  But 
those  who  trusted  in  God  and  waited  patiently  for  Him  were  kept  by 
Him  from  these  deceivers :  '  the  sheep  did  not  hear  them.' — When, 
setting  aside  the  thought  of  all  true  prophets,  we  ask  who  they  are  to 
•whom  this  description  applies,  we  naturally  think,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, of  false  Messiahs,  of  whom  many  appeared  in  Jewish  history. 
It  may  be  said  that  we  have  no  record  of  a  claim  to  Messiahship  ear- 
lier than  the  time  when  these  words  were  spoken.  This  answer  con- 
tains too  positive  an  assertion.  There  is  reason  for  believing  that 
Judas  of  Galilee  (mentioned  in  Acts  5:  37)  was  regarded  by  some  as 
the  Christ;  and  Gamaliel's  words  respecting  Theudas  (Acts  5:  36) 
may  very  possibly  cover  a  similar  assumption.  The  Gospels  reveal  a 
state  of  Messianic  hope  out  of  which  such  deception  might  easily  arise. 
That  popular  insurrections  were  continually  occurring  is  a  notorious 
fact ;  and  if  Josephus,  our  chief  authority  for  the  history  of  this  pe- 
riod, fails  to  give  us  a  careful  account  of  the  religious  hopes  that  were 
fostered  by  the  leaders  of  revolt,  his  character  and  aims  as  a  historian 
are  a  sufiicient  explanation  of  his  silence.  But  whether  the  thought 
of  false  Messiahs  is  admissible  or  not,  the  meaning  of  the  words  must 
extend  much  farther,  and  must  embrace  all  who  had  sought  to  turn 
the  people  from  waiting  for  the  promise  which  God  had  given,  or  had 
substituted  other  principles  of  national  life  for  the  hope  of  the  Mes- 
siah. Such  had  long  been  the  practical  effect  of  the  rule  and  teaching 
of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees.  These  men  had  sat  in  the  seat  of  Moses 
to  make  void  the  law  and  to  extinguish  the  promise  by  their  vain  tra- 
ditions, and  for  their  selfish  ends;  and  they  are  certainly,  perhaps 
mainly,  thought  of  here. 

Ver.  9.  I  am  the  door:  by  me  if  any  one  have  entered  in, 
he  shall  be  saved,  and  shall  enter  in,  and  shall  go  out  and 
find  pasture.  From  the  thought  of  the  '  thieves  and  robbers,'  Jesus 
turns  to  that  of  *  a  shepherd  of  the  sheep.'  And  as  entering  by  the 
door  has  been  mentioned  (ver.  1)  as  the  first  mark  of  a  true  shepherd, 
He  emphatically  repeats  His  former  saying,  '  I  am  the  door.'     In  ver. 


232  JOHN  X.  [10:  10. 

by  me  if  auy  man  enter  in,  he  shall   be  saved,  and 
10  shall  go  in  and  go  out,  and  shall  find  pasture.     The 

7,  however,  as  ver.  8  shows,  it  is  of  the  release  of  the  flock  from  the 
fold  that  we  must  chiefly  think  (and  therefore  the  words  'of  the 
sheep'  were  naturally  added).  The  repetition  here  introduces  the 
other  application  of  the  thought.  Whoever  has  entered  through  this 
Door  (Christ)  shall  be  saved,  and  shall  enter  in  (to  the  fold),  and 
shall  go  out  and  find  pasture  (for  the  flock  over  which  he  is  placed  in 
charge).  The  repetition  of  '  enter,'  it  will  be  seen,  involves  no  tau- 
tology: first,  the  shepherd  passes  through  the  door,  then  goes  into 
the  heart  of  the  enclosure  to  call  to  him  his  sheep.  He  goes  in  for 
the  purpose  of  coming  out  to  find  pas^turage  for  the  flock  that  follows 
him  from  the  fold.  The  chief  difficulty  lies  in  the  interpretation  of 
the  words :  '  he  shall  be  saved.'  The  sudden  introduction  of  this 
thought  in  the  very  midst  of  figurative  language  most  consistently 
preserved  [the  door,  enter  in,  go  out  and  find  pasture)  at  first  appears 
strange.  But  the  very  place  which  the  words  hold  supplies  a  key  to 
their  interpretation.  We  cannot  content  ourselves  with  saying  that 
the  whole  parable  is  instinct  witii  the  thought  of  salvation  in  its  gene- 
ral sense,  and  that  what  is  present  in  every  part  may  surely  be  ex- 
pressed in  one.  It  is  tru3  that  in  our  Lord's  parables  we  sometimes 
find  a  rapid  transition  from  the  sign  to  the  thing  signified  ;  but  such 
an  intermixture  of  fact  and  figure  as  (on  that  supposition)  is  found 
here,  we  meet  with  nowhere  else.  Whatever  difficulty  may  arise,  the 
words  must  connect  themselves  with  the  imagery  of  the  parable.  The 
chapters  of  Ezekiel  and  Zechariah,  referred  to  in  the  note  on  ver.  1, 
show  at  once  how  this  is  possible.  We  have  before  seen  (see  chap.  3 : 
3;  7:  39;  8:  33,  etc.)  how  suddenly  our  Lord  sometimes  removes  His 
hearers  into  a  familiar  region  of  Old  Testament  history  or  prophecy. 
To  the  teachers  of  the  law,  who  were  the  hearers  of  most  of  the  dis- 
courses related  by  John,  the  letter  of  the  Old  Testament  was  well 
known;  and,  moreover,  it  is  very  probable  that  in  the  discourses  as 
delivered  other  words  may  have  been  added,  not  necessary  to  the 
completeness  of  the  thought,  but  helpful  to  the  understanding  of  the 
hearers.  One  of  the  connecting  links  between  this  chapter  and  the 
last  is  the  evil  wrought  by  unworthy  and  false  shepherds;  in  this 
■word  suddenly  introduced  in  the  portraiture  of  a  true  shepherd,  we 
have  vividly  brought  before  us  all  that  the  prophets  had  said  of  the 
fate  of  the  unworthy.  Those  shepherds  who  had  no  pity  on  the  flock, 
but  said :  '  Blessed  be  the  Lord,  for  I  am  rich,'  the  soul  of  the  prophet 
'loathed,'  and  he  gave  them  to  destruction  (Zech.  11 :  5,  8,  17). 
From  all  such  penalty  of  unfaithfulness  shall  the  true  shepherd  be 
'saved.'  That  He  whose  love  to  His  flock  assigns  this  punishment  to 
the  unworthy  will  reward  the  faithful,  may  not  be  expressed  in  the 
figure;  but  in  the  interpretation  it  holds  the  chief  place:  to  such  a 
shepherd  of  souls  will  Jesus  give  salvation. 

Ver.  10.    The  thief  cometh  not  but  that  he  may  steal  and 


10:  11.]  JOHN  X.  233 

thief  cometh  not,  but  that  he  may  steal,  and  kill,  and 

destroy:  I  came  that  they  may  have  life,  and  may 

11  ^have  it  abundantly.     I  am  the  good  shepherd  :  the 

1  Or,  have  abundance. 

kill,  and  destroy.  This  verse  forms  a  link  of  connection  between 
ver.  9  and  ver.  11,  presenting  first  the  contrast  between  a  ti-ue  shep- 
herd and  'the  thief,'  and  then  preparing  the  way  for  the  highest  con- 
trast of  all,  that  between  the  thief  and  the  Good  Shepherd.  The 
rightful  Shepherd  has  entered  (ver.  9),  that  He  may  lead  out  His 
flock  to  the  pastures ;  the  thief  cometh  only  to  steal  and  kill,  feeding 
himself,  and  not  the  flock,  even  seeking  its  destruction. — I  came 
that  they  may  have  life,  and  that  they  may  have  abun- 
dance. To  this  point  the  figure  contained  in  'I  am  the  door'  has 
been  more  or  less  clearly  preserved,  for  the  shepherd  has,  and  the 
thief  has  not,  entered  the  fold  by  the  door.  The  language  now  before 
us  does  not  really  depart  from  this  conception  (for  in  opposition  to 
those  who  'came  before'  Him  professing  to  be  'the  door  of  the  sheep,' 
Jesus  here  says,  'I  came'),  although  it  agrees  still  better  with  the 
thought  of  ver.  11.  In  fact  the  words  'I  came'  stand  in  double  con- 
trast— with  the  words  of  ver.  8,  and  with  the  first  Avords  of  this  verse 
•the  thief  cometh.'  By  whatever  figure  Jesus  is  represented,  the  ob- 
ject of  His  appearing  is  the  same,  that  His  sheep  may  live.  The  life 
and  abundance  are  the  reality  of  which  the  pasturage  (ver.  9)  has 
been  the  symbol.  As  in  chap.  7,  the  blessings  of  Messiah's  kingdom 
are  represented  by  abundant  streams  of  living  water,  so  here  the  re- 
gions into  which  Jesus  is  leading  His  flock  are  regions  of  life  and  of 
abundance.  To  His  people  He  gives  eternal  life ;  there  shall  be  no 
want  to  them  for  maintaining  their  life  in  all  its  freedom  and  joy; 
their  '  cup  runneth  over." 

Ver.  11.  I  am  the  good  shepherd:  the  good  shepherd 
layeth  down  his  life  for  the  sheep.  The  aspect  of  the  preamble 
here  changes:  in  the  following  verses,  until  the  16th,  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  fold  or  of  the  door,  but  of  the  shepherd  only  and  his 
relation  to  the  flock.  The  word  rendered  'good'  occurs  but  seldom 
in  this  Gospel ;  it  diff"ers  from  the  word  ordinarily  so  translated 
(which,  however,  John  uses  still  less  frequently),  in  that  it  is  never 
used  to  express  the  idea  of  kindness,  but  always  signifies  what  is 
beautiful,  noble,  excellent  of  its  kind.  Both  words  may  be  used  to 
denote  moral  excellence,  and  with  but  slight  difference  of  meaning. 
Here  then  the  epithet  has  no  reference  to  kindness,  but  to  excellence 
as  a  Shepherd.  Is  there  a  shepherd  whose  work  is  not  only  faithful, 
but  all  fair,  without  spot  or  defect,  such  a  Shepherd  of  the  flock  is  the 
Lord  Jesus.  The  highest  point  which  the  Shepherd's  faithfulness  can 
reach  is  His  laying  down  His  life  for  the  sheep :  when  the  wolf  as- 
saults the  flock,  the  Good  Shepherd  repels  Him,  although  He  die  in 
the  attempt.     Strictly  taken,   these  words  are  general,  and  may  be 


234  JOHN  X.  [10:  12-U, 

good  shepherd  layeth  down  his  life  for  the  sheep. 

12  He  that  is  a  hireling,  and  not  a  shepherd,  whose 
own  the  sheep  are  not,  beholdeth  the  wolf  coming, 
and    leaveth   the   sheep,   and    fleeth,   and   the   wolf 

13  snatcheth  them,  and  scattereth  them :  he  fleeth  be- 
cause he  is  a  hireling,  and  careth  not  for  the  sheep. 

14  I  am   the   good  shepherd ;  and  I  know  mine  own, 

said  of  every  noble  shepherd ;  but,  connected  with  the  first  clause, 
they  in  ( ffect  declai-e  what  is  done  by  Jesus  Himself.  Our  Lord's 
hearers  at  the  time  would  understand  no  more  than  this,  that  at  the 
peril  of  His  life  He  would  defend  His  flock ;  but  it  is  impossible  to 
read  chap.  11 :  61  without  seeing  in  the  words  a  reference  to  the  truth 
declared  in  chap.  3:  14,  15;  12:  32 — the  atoning  death  of  the  Re- 
deemer, which  brings  life  to  the  world. 

Vers.  12,  13.  He  that  is  an  hireling  and  not  a  shepherd, 
VT^hose  o-wn  the  sheep  are  not,  beholdeth  the  -wolf  coming, 
and  leaveth  the  sheep  and  fleeth  (and  the  -wolf  catcheth 
them  and  scattereth),  because  he  is  an  hireling  and  careth 
not  for  the  sheep.  A  true  shepherd  will  purchase  the  life  of  his 
sheep  by  the  sacrifice  of  his  own  life.  The  man  who  has  taken  the 
work  of  a  shepherd  for  hire,  who  is  only  a  hireling  and  careth  not  for 
the  sheep,  abandons  them  as  soon  as  danger  approaches,  and  gains  his 
own  life  at  the  cost  of  the  life  of  his  sheep.  Since  the  sheep  are  not 
to  him  as  'his  own,'  the  very  name  of  shepherd  is  denied  him.  If 
'the  thief  who  comes  under  the  guise  of  shepherd  stands  for  all  who 
force  themselves  into  the  place  of  rulers  and  guides,  for  the  sake  of 
private  gain,  'the  hireling'  seems  to  represent  those  who  held  such 
place  by  lawful  right,  but  when  faithfulness  was  needed  most  deserted 
duty  through  fear.  Godet  points  to  chap.  12:  42  as  exemplifying  the 
description  here  given.  The  lawful  rulers  dare  not  avow  their  own 
convictions  and  thus  guard  the  people  who  trust  in  them;  the  Phari- 
saic spirit  is  too  strong  for  them ;  they  save  themselves  by  silence  and 
give  up  those  for  whom  they  should  care  to  the  persecution  of  the 
enemy.  Some  of  these  will  yield  to  the  foe  and  deny  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ;  many  will  be  scattered.  It  is  possible  therefore  that  'the 
wolf  may  here  represent  this  spirit  of  Judaism,  but  we  should  rather 
say  that  it  is  the  enemy  (Luke  10:  19)  of  God  and  man  who  is  repre- 
sented under  the  symbol  of  the  natural  foe  of  the  sheep  and  of  the 
Shepherd.  Whatever  agency  may  be  used,  the  ultimate  source  of  the 
murderous  design  is  the  spirit  of  evil,  the  Devil,  he  who  was  '  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning.' 

Vers.  14,  15.  lam  the  good  shepherd,  and  I  know  mine 
ovrn,  and  mine  o-w^n  know  me,  even  as  the  Father  kno"w- 
eth  me,  and  I  know  the  Father.  And  I  lay  down  my  life 
for  the  sheep.     As  the  figure  of  ver.  7  was  repeated  in  ver.  9,  that 


10:  15,  16.]  JOHN  X.  235 

15  and  mine  own  know  me,  even  as  the  Father  know- 
eth  me,  and  I  know  the  Father  ;  and  I  lay  down  my 

16  life  for  the  sheep.  And  other  sheep  I  have,  which 
are  not  of  this  fold  :  them  also  I  must  ^bring,  and 
they  shall    hear  my  voice  ;   and  ^  they   shall  become 

1  Or,  lead.  2  Or,  there  shall  be  one  flock. 

it  might  receive  a  new  and  blessed  application,  so  here  we  have  a  rep- 
etition of  the  figure  presented  in  the  11th  verse.  The  repetition  removes 
from  view  the  unworthy  :  we  are  brought  once  more  into  the  presence 
of  Jesus  and  His  own.  First  and  last  in  these  two  verses  stand  the 
two  clauses  of  the  former  verse,  altered  only  in  so  far  that  what  there 
was  said  of  the  Good  Sliepherd  is  here  said  of  Jesus  Himself  ('/  lay 
down').  Between  these  two  clauses  are  placed  two  other  sayings,  the 
first  suggested  at  once  by  the  figure  used,  the  second  rising  higher 
than  any  earlier  words  of  the  parable.  Since  Jesus  is  the  good  Shep- 
herd, His  sheep  hear  His  voice  and  He  calleth  His  own  sheep  by 
name  (ver.  3)  :  hence  He  says  that  He  knows  (recognises)  His  own 
sheep  and  His  own  know  (recognise)  Him.  But  once  more  (see  chap.  8: 
38)  Ke  places  in  parallelism  His  own  relation  to  the  Father  and  the  re- 
lation of  His  own  to  Him,  He  looks  on  the  sheep  and  sees  at  once  that 
they  are  His :  they  see  Him  and  hear  His  voice  and  know  that  He  is  their 
Shepherd.  So  the  Father  looks  on  Him  and  sees  in  Him  the  Good  Shep- 
herd whom  He  sent :  He  looks  on  the  Father,  and  constantly  recognises 
His  presence  as  the  Father  with  Him.  There  is  wonderful  beauty  and 
elevation  in  the  comparison ;  no  saying  of  our  Lord  goes  beyond  this  in 
unfolding  the  intimacy  of  communion  between  Himself  and  His  peo- 
ple which  it  reveals  and  promises.  They  are  His,  as  He  is  the  Father's. 

These  two  vei-ses  are  remarkable  for  simplicity  of  structure.  As  in 
the  simplest  examples  of  Hebrew  poetry,  thought  is  attached  to 
thought,  one  member  is  placed  in  parallelism  with  another.  Yet,  as 
in  Hebrew  poetry  of  which  this  reminds  us,  a  dependence  of  thought 
upon  thought,  may  be  inferred,  though  it  is  not  expressed.  Thus  we 
have  seen  that,  if  Jesus  is  the  Good  Shepherd,  it  must  be  true  that  He 
recognises  His  own  sheep.  So  also  (and  it  is  to  point  out  this  that  we 
call  attention  to  the  structure  of  the  verse)  the  Father's  recognition  of. 
Him  closely  connects  itself  with  His  laying  down  His  life,  as  the  Shep- 
herd for  the  sheep.  In  this  the  Father  sees  the  highest  proof  of  His 
devotion  to  the  work  He  has  accepted  :  in  the  spirit  of  constant  read- 
iness for  this  crowning  act  of  love  He  recognises  the  Father's  con- 
stant presence  and  love  (ver.  17).  And,  as  the  words  of  the  verse 
bear  witness  to  the  Father's  care  for  man  (not  less  truly  and  power- 
fully because  this  meaning  does  not  lie  on  the  surface  of  the  words), 
it  is  easy  to  see  once  more  with  what  fitness  we  here  read  'the  Fa- 
ther,' and  not  simply  <  My  Father'  (see  chap.  8:  27,  38). 

Ver.  16.     And  other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  of  this 
fold :   them  also  I  must  lead,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice. 


236  JOHN  X.  [10 :  16. 

Not  in  the  Jewish  Church  only  was  there  a  work  of  preparation  for 
His  coming:  the  light  had  been  shining  in  the  darkness  (chap,  1:  5), 
— the  light  which  enlighteneth  every  man  (1:  9).  Many  in  the  Gen- 
tile world  were  waiting  only  to  hear  His  voice:  they  will  recognise 
their  Shepherd,  and  He  will  know  His  own  sheep.  He  regards  them 
as  His  own  even  now  ('other  sheep  1  have  ');  they  are  not  shunning 
the  light  and  seeking  darkness  ;  He  receives  them  now  as  His  Father's 
gift  to  Him.  It  is  not  easy  to  answer  a  question  which  the  words  im- 
mediately suggest:  Does  our  Loi-d  speak  of  these  'other  sheep'  of  the 
Gentile  world  as  abiding  in  a  fold'?  It  might  be  so.  We  cannot  see 
that  there  would  be  difiiculty  in  regarding  that  dispensation  of  which 
we  know  so  little,  the  dealings  of  the  One  Father  with  the  heathen 
world  (to  which  had  been  given  no  such  revelation  as  the  Jews  pos- 
sessed, but  in  which  He  had  never  left  Himself  without  witness),  as 
symbolized  by  a  '  fold.'  But  there  does  seem  to  be  an  intentional 
avoidance  of  any  word  that  would  necessarily  suggest  this  image  here. 
No  mention  is  made  of  'entering  in'  to  the  place  where  these  sheep 
abide,  or  of  the  door  through  which  they  pass.  The  word  'lead'  is 
used  again,  but,  whereas  in  ver.  3  we  read  that  the  Shepherd  leadeth 
out  His  own  sheep  fx'om  the  Jewish  fold,  here  He  says  only  '  them  also 
I  must  Icad.^  We  conclude  therefore  that  it  was  not  without  design 
that  Jesus  said — not  '  I  have  sheep  of  another  fold,'  but — '  I  have  other 
sheep,  not  of  this  fold.'  The  language  of  chap.  11:  52  suggests 
rather  that  these 'other  sheep'  have  been  comparatively  shelterless, 
not  drawn  together  by  any  shepherd's  care,  but  '  scattered  abroad.' 
Their  past  has  been  altogether  different  from  that  of  the  devout  Is- 
raelite ;  but  the  future  of  Jew  and  Gentile  shall  be  the  same.  As  in 
the  case  of  Israel,  so  here  the  whole  work  of  bringing  liberty  and 
life  is  accomplished  by  Jesus  Himself :  it  is  a  work  that  He  mmt  ^o 
(comp.  chap.  4:  34;  9:4,  etc.),  for  it  is  His  Father's  will.  He  seeks 
the  scattered  sheep  ;  they  come  together  to  Him ;  He  places  Himself 
at  the  head  of  this  other  flock ;  His  voice  keeps  them  near  to  Him. 
Passing  for  a  moment  from  the  figure,  we  recognise  once  more  how 
Jesus  includes  all  the  work  of  faith  and  discipleship  in  'hearing  Him'' 
(see  chap.  8:  31,  40,  47)  :  all  that  had  been  wanting  to  these  heirs  of 
a  lower  dispensation  is  supplied  when  they  hear  His  voice. — And 
they  shall  become  one  flock,  one  shepherd.  Then  shall  be 
brought  to  pass  the  saying  that  is  written,  One  flock.  One  Shepherd 
(Ezek.  34:  23;  37:  22-24).  As  written  by  the  prophet  indeed  the 
words  have  express  reference  to  the  reuniting  of  scattered  and  di- 
vided Israel;  but  as  in  countless  other  instances,  the  history  of  Israel 
is  a  parable  of  the  history  of  the  world.  The  apostolic  comment  on 
the  verse  is  found  in  Ephesians,  chap.  2.  It  is  very  unfortunate  that  in 
the  Authorised  Version  the  rendering  'one  fold'  should  have  found  a 
place  instead  of  'one  flock.'  The  whole  thought  of  the  parable  is 
thrown  into  confusion  by  this  error,  which  is  the  less  excusable  in- 
asmuch as  the  word  which  actually  does  mean  '  fold'  (a  word  altogether 
dissimilar)  occurs  in  the  first  part  of  the  verse.     Our  fii'st  and  greatest 


10:  17,  18.]  J0x4N  X.  237 

17  one  flock,  one  shepherd.  Therefore  doth  the  Father 
love   me,  because   I    lay   down   my  life,  that   I   may 

18  take  it  again.  Xo  one  taketh  it  away  from  me,  but 
I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have  ^power  to  lay  it 
down,  and  I  have  ^power  to  take  it  again.  This  com- 
mandment received  I  from  my  Father. 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  tuok  it  away.  2  Or,  rujht. 

translator,  William  Tyndale,  rightly  understood  the  words :  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Vulgate  and  of  Erasmus  was  in  this  case  prejudicial,  and 
led  Coverdale  (who  in  his  own  Bible  of  1535  had  followed  Tyndale) 
to  introiluce  the  wrong  translation  into  the  Great  Bible  of  1589.  We 
may  well  wonder  that  the  Vulgate  should  contain  so  strange  a  mis- 
take ;  the  older  Latin  version  was  here  correct,  but  was  changed  by 
Jerome.  [The  mistranslation  favors  the  false  notion  of  the  necessity 
of  one  visible  organization  out  of  which  there  can  be  no  salvation. 
There  may  be  many  folds,  and  yet  but  one  flock. — P.  S.] 

Yer.  17. — Therefore  doth  the  Father  love  me,  because  I 
lay  down  my  life  that  I  may  take  it  again.  In  ver.  15  we 
have  read  of  the  Father  s  recognition  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  who 
gives  the  highest  proof  of  His  devotion  to  the  shepherd's  work  and 
possession  of  the  shepherd's  character  in  laying  down  His  life  for  the 
sheep.  These  verses  take  up  and  expand  that  thought,  speaking  not 
of  recognition  only  but  of  love.  But  it  is  with  ver.  16  that  ver.  17  is 
immediately  connected.  '  I  must'  had  expressed  complete  union  with 
His  Father's  will:  the  prophecy  that  follows  brought  into  view  the 
full  and  certain  accomplishment  of  the  Father's  purpose,  On  this 
account ,  because  of  this  union  of  will  and  this  devotion  to  His  purpose, 
'the  Father,'  (note  once  more  how  perfect  is  the  fitness  of  this  name 
here)  loveth  Him, — namely,  because  He  layeth  down  His  life  that  He 
may  take  it  again.  The  two  parts  of  this  statement  must  be  closely 
joined  together.  The  perfect  conformity  to  the  Father's  will  is  shown 
not  in  laying  down  the  life  only,  but  also  in  taking  it  again.  The  duty 
of  the  Shepherd  as  set  forth  in  vers.  15,  16,  can  only  in  this  way  be 
accomplished.  He  gives  His  life  to  purchase  life  for  His  sheep,  but 
besides  this  He  must  continue  to  lead  the  flock  of  which  He  is  the 
Only  Shepherd.  In  the  execution  of  His  work,  therefore,  He  could 
not  give  Himself  to  death  without  the  purpose  of  taking  His  life 
again :  He  died  that  His  own  may  ever  live  in  His  life.  — But,  if  the 
Father's  love  can  rest  on  the  Son  who  is  obedient  even  unto  death,  and 
unto  life  through  death,  it  is  essential  that  the  obedience  be  entirely 
free.     Hence  the  words  of  the  next  verse. 

Yer.  18.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me,  but  I  lay  it  down  of 
myself.  I  have  po-wer  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have  power 
to  take  it  again.  He  lays  down  His  life  of  Himself.  He  has  the 
right  to  do  this,  and  the  right  to  take  the  life  again. — This  com,- 


238  JOHN  X.  [10:  19-21. 

19  There  arose  a  division   again   among   the   Jews  be- 

20  cause   of  these   words.      And   many   of    them   said 
He  hath  a  ^devil,  and   is   mad ;    why  hear   ye  him  ? 

21  Others  said,  These  are   not  the   sayings  of  one  pos- 
sessed with  a  ^devil.     Can  a  Mevil   open  the  eyes  of 

^.      the  blind  ? 

■'■  iGr.  demon. 

mandment  I  received  of  my  Father.  By  His  Father's  express 
commission  He  has  this  right  of  free  decision.  For  the  first  time 
Jesus  here  speaks  of  the  'commandment'  which  He  has  received,  and 
the  use  of  this  term  is  in  full  harmony  with  the  position  He  has  as- 
sumed throughout  the  parable,  the  Shepherd  of  God's  flock,  the  Ser- 
vant of  Jehovah.  On  the  word  'love'  (ver.  17)  see  note  on  chap.  5: 
20 :  the  word  found  in  that  verse  is  not  used  here,  for  the  reason  there 
explained.  A  question  is  often  asked  in  relation  to  the  words  of  these 
verses :  if  the  teaching  of  Scripture  is  that  the  Father  raised  the 
Son  from  the  dead,  how  can  Jesus  speak  as  Re  here  does  about  His 
resumption  of  life?  But,  if  the  words  'this  commandment'  be  inter- 
preted as  above,  to  refer  to  the  Father's  will  that  the  death  and  re- 
surrection should  rest  on  the  free  choice  of  Jesus,  the  answer  is  plain : 
Jesus  took  His  life  again  in  voluntarily  accepting  the  exercise  of  His 
Father's  power.  If  we  understand  the  'commandment'  to  relate — 
not  to  the  possession  of  right  or  power,  but — to  the  actual  death  and 
resurrection,  the  answer  is  different,  but  not  less  easy  :  Jesus  in  rising 
from  the  dead  freely  obeys  the  Father's  will, — the  Father's  will  is  still 
the  ultimate  source  of  the  action  of  the  Son. 

Ver.  19.  There  arose  again  a  division  among  the  Je-wrs 
because  of  these  -words.  The  effect  related  in  chap.  7:  43;  9: 
16,  is  again  produced.  This  time  however  (as  in  chap.  8:  31)  'the 
Jews'  themselves  are  divided.  The  preceding  parable  therefore  must 
have  been  spoken  in  the  hearing  of  many  who  were  hostile  to  Jesus, 
as  well  as  of  Pharisees  (chap.  9 :  40)  who  may  have  been  half  con- 
vinced. 

Vers.  20,  21.  And  many  of  them  said,  He  hath  a  demon, 
and  is  mad  ;  why  hear  ye  him  ?  Others  said,  These  are  not 
the  sayings  of  one  that  is  possessed  by  a  demon.  Can  a 
demon  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind?  In  the  other  instances 
quoted  above  the  division  of  feeling  had  been  between  'some'  and 
'  others:'  here,  where  'the  Jews'  are  in  question,  mam/  are  driven  by 
the  words  of  Jesus  to  more  bitter  hostility,  repeating  and  extending 
the  charge  of  which  we  read  in  chap.  7:  20;  8:  48.  But  there  are 
others  whom  the  miracle  related  in  chap.  9,  had  impressed,  though  at 
the  time  they  did  not  stand  up  against  the  action  of  their  party  (chap. 
9:  34)  The  object  produced  on  them  by  the  miracle  which  Jesus 
wrought  is  now  deepened  by  His  teaching :  as  in  the  case  of  Nicode- 
mus  the  'sign'  prepared  the  way  for  the  instruction  of  the  'words.' 


10:22.]  JOHN  X.  239 

Chapter  10 :  22-42. 

Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication. — The  Increasing 
Contrasts  of  Faith  and  Unbelief 

22      ^And  it  was  the  feast  of  the  dedication  at  Jerusa- 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read,  At  thai  time  was  the  feast. 

In  the  question  asked  we  have  the  same  association  of  teaching  and 
miracle.  A  man  possessed  by  a  spirit  of  evil  could  not  say  such 
things  as  these  :  a  demon  (though  he  might  be  supposed  able  to  cast 
out  another  demon)  could  not  restore  to  the  blind  their  sight.  It  is 
interesting  to  observe  in  these  last  words  the  tendency  of  the  Evan- 
gelist to  close  a  section  with  words  that  recall  its  opening,  thus  bind- 
ing all  the  parts  of  a  narrative  into  one  whole. 

Jesus  at  the  Feast  of  the  Dedication. — The  Increasing  Contrasts  of  Faith 
and  Unbelief,  vers.  22-42. 

COKTENTS. — The  contest  with  the  Jews  is  continued.  The  sectirn  strikingly  illus- 
trates the  plan  of  the  Gospel,  (1)  by  taking  up  again  that  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Son 
of  God  which  had,  more  than  anything  else,  provoked  the  opposition  of  His  enemies; 
(2)  by  bringing  into  notice  His  return  to  Bethany  beyond  Jordan,  where  He  had  been 
first  made  manifest  by  the  Baptist  to  Israel,  and  where  confession  is  now  made  by 
•many  '  that  everjthing  spoken  of  Him  by  the  Baptist  at  His  entrance  upon  His 
public  ministry  had  proved  true.  We  have  here,  therefore,  the  culminating  point  of 
the  contlict,  and  the  pause  before  the  highest  manifestation  by  Jesus  of  Himself  as 
the  Eesurrection  and  the  Life.  The  subordinate  parts  are— (1)  10 :  22-39 ;  (2;  vers. 
40-42. 

Yer.  22.  There  came  to  pass  at  that  time  the  feast  of  the 
dedication  at  Jerusalem :  it  -was  ■winter.  With  these  words 
we  enter  on  a  new  scene,  where  the  Evangelist  first  sets  before  us  the 
outward  circumstances,  expressing  them,  after  his  usual  manner,  by 
three  clauses.  Where  and  how  the  weeks  intervening  between  the 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  chap.  7  and  the  feast  now  mentioned  were 
spent,  John  does  not  inform  us.  Once  more  he  shows  clearly  that  his 
intention  is  not  to  give  a  continuous  narrative;  for,  though  he  has 
clearly  defined  two  points  of  time  (the  two  festivals),  he  records  in 
the  interval  events  of  but  two  or  three  days.  The  festival  here  spoken 
of  was  instituted  by  Judas  Maccaboeus,  b.  c.  165.  For  three  years  the 
sanctuary  had  been  desolate,  and  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  had 
been  placed  an  altar  for  idol-worship.  After  the  victory  gained  at 
Bethsura  (or  Bethzur),  the  first  thought  of  Judas  was  to  '  cleanse  and 
dedicate  the  sanctuary'  which  had  been  profaned.  The  altar  of  burnt- 
offering  was  taken  down,  and  a  new  altar  built ;  and  all  Israel  '  or- 
dained that  the  days  of  the  dedication  of  the  altar  should  be  kept  in 
their  season  from  year  to  year  by  the  space  of  eight  days,  from  the 
five  and  twentieth  day  of  the  month  Cisleu,  with  mirth  and  gladness' 


240  JOHN  X.  [10:  23,  24. 

23  lem :  it  was  winter ;   and  Jesus  was  walking  in  the 

24  temple  in  Solomon's  porch.  The  Jews  therefore  came 
round  about  him,  and  said  unto  him,  How  long  dost 
thou  hold  us  in  suspense?     If  thou  art  the  Christ, 

(1  Mace.  4:  59),  The  date  would  correspond  to  a  late  day  in  our 
month  of  December.  We  do  not  find  in  the  following  verses  any 
words  of  our  Lord  which  directly  relate  to  this  festival ;  but  those 
readers  who  have  noted  how  carefully  the  Evangelist  points  to  the 
idea  of  every  Jewish  feast  as  fulfilled  in  Jesus  will  not  suppose  that 
there  is  an  exception  here.  Having  heard  the  words  of  chap.  2 :  19, 
he  could  not  but  associate  his  Lord  with  the  temple;  and  a  feast  which 
commemorated  the  reconstruction  of  the  temple  must  have  had  great 
significance  in  his  eyes. 

Ver.  23.  And  Jesus  walked  in  the  temple-courts,  in  Solo- 
mon's porch.  The  '  porch '  which  bore  Solomon's  name  was  a 
covered  colonnade  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  outer  court  of  the  tem- 
ple. According  to  Josephus,  this  'porch'  was  the  work  of  Solomon; 
at  all  events,  we  may  well  believe  that  the  massive  foundations  were 
laid  by  him,  though  the  cloisters  which  he  built  were  in  ruins  when 
Herod  began  his  restoration  of  the  temple. 

Ver.  24.  The  Jews  therefore  surrounded  him,  and  said 
unto  him,  How  long  dost  thou  excite  our  soul?  If  thou 
art  the  Christ,  tell  us  plainly.  The  recurrence  of  the  oft-repeated 
term  'the  Jews'  is  a  sufficient  indication  of  the  tone  and  design  of  the 
question  asked.  Taking  advantage,  perhaps,  of  the  fact  that  Jesus 
was  in  the  cloisters  of  the  temple-courts,  and  not  now  in  the  midst  of 
a  listening  'multitude,'  His  enemies  encompass  Him,  determined  to 
gain  from  Him  such  an  avowal  of  His  Messiahship  as  shall  enable 
them  tio  carry  out  their  designs  against  His  life. — The  expression 
which  in  the  Authorized  Version  is  rendered  'make  us  to  doubt'  has 
received  various  explanations.  That  adopted  by  us  is  perhaps,  upon 
the  whole,  the  most  probable.  Another,  however,  may  be  suggested 
by  what  is  at  least  a  curious  coincidence,  that  the  verb  used  by  the 
Jews  is  the  same  as  that  used  by  our  Lord  for  'taketh'  in  the  first 
clause  of  ver.  18,  and  the  noun  now  rendered  'soul'  is  more  probably 
'life,'  and  is  indeed  so  translated  in  ver.  17.  Following  these  hints, 
we  venture  to  ask  whether  the  words  may  not  mean :  '  How  long  dost 
thou  take  away  our  life?'  They  will  then  be  one  of  those  unconscious 
prophecies,  of  those  unconscious  testimonies  to  the  going  on  of  some- 
thing deeper  than  they  were  themselves  aware  of,  which  John  delights 
to  find  on  the  lips  of  the  opponents  of  Jesus.  They  were  stirring  up 
their  enmity  against  Him  to  a  pitch  which  was  to  lead  them  to  take 
away  His  life;  and  by  their  words  they  confess  that  He  is  taking 
away  theirs.  It  is  not  meant,  in  what  has  now  been  said,  to  assert 
that  the  Jews  actually  intended  to  express  this,  but  only  that  Joha 
sees  it  in  the  language  which  they  use.     They  meant  only,  How  long 


10 :  25-28.]  JOHN  X.  241 

25  tell   US  plainly.     Jesus  answered  them,  I   told  jou, 
and   ye    believe   not :   the  works  that   I   do  in  my 

26  Father's  name,  these  bear  witness  of  me.     But  ye 

27  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my  sheep.     My 
sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they 

28  follow  me:  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  and 
they  shall   never   perish,   and   no   one   shall   snatch 

dost  thou  excite  us  or  keep  us  in  suspense?  Put  an  end  to  this  by 
speaking  plainly,  or  (more  literally)  by  speaking  out,  telling  all  Thou 
hast  to  tell. 

Ver.  25.  Jesus  answered  them,  I  told  you,  and  ye  believe 
not :  the  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's  name,  they  bear 
witness  concerning  me.  A  demand  so  made  was  never  granted 
by  Jesus.  They  had  already  received  sufficient  evidence,  and  to  this 
He  refers  them.  He  again  speaks  of  both  word  and  deed.  What  He 
had  said  (see  chap.  5:  19;  8:  36,  56,  58)  had  shown  clearly  who  He 
is ;  what  He  ^d  done  had  borne  witness  concerning  Him  (see  chap. 
5:  36).  But  both  word  and  works  had  failed  to  lead  them  to  belief 
in  Him. 

Yer.  26.  But  ye  believe  not,  because  ye  are  not  of  my 
sheep.  In  chap.  8 :  47  He  had  said  that  they  heard  not  His  words 
because  they  were  not  of  God ;  the  same  thought  is  expressed  here, 
but  with  a  change  of  figure.  There  is  no  reference  to  an  essential  or 
necessary  state,  to  any  '  decree '  through  the  operation  of  which  they 
were  incapable  of  faith.  They  have  not  the  character,  the  disposition, 
of  His  sheep;  through  this  moral  defect  (for  which  they  are  them- 
selves responsible,  see  chap.  3:  19,  etc.\  they  will  not  believe.  This 
is  brought  out  more  fully  in  the  next  verse. 

Vers.  27,  28.  In  these  verses  is  given  a  description  of  the  true 
sheep.  The  description  is  rhythmical,  and  rises  to  a  climax.  The 
first  couplet  expresses  some  property  of  the  sheep,  the  second  a  cor- 
responding attitude  or  action  of  the  Shepherd ;  and  each  successive- 
couplet  takes  us  into  a  higher  sphere  of  thought  and  blessing. 

1.  My  sheep  hear  my  voice, 
And  I  know  them ; 

2.  And  they  follow  me, 

And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life, 

3.  And  they  shall  never  perish, 

And  no  one  shall  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand. 

The  couplets,  as  will  be  seen,  express  successively  the  mutual  recog- 
nition of  sheep  and  Shepherd  (for  this  is  the  meaning  conveyed  by 
the  word  here  rendered  'know'— see  the  note  on  vers.  14,  15);  the 
present  gift  of  eternal  life  to  those  who  follow  Jesus  (see  chap,  8:  12, 
etc.) ;  the  lasti7iff  safety  of  those  who  thus  follow  Him  and  abide  with 
16 


242  JOHN  X.  [10:  29-31. 

29  them  out  of    my  liand.     ^My    Father,    which    hath 
give  them  unto  me,  is  greater  than  all ;    and  no  one 

30  is  able  to  snat(;h  Hhem  out  of  the  Father's  hand.     I 

31  and  the  Father  are  one.     The  Jews  took  up  stones 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  that  which  my  Father  hath  given  unto  me. 
2  Or,  aught. 

Him.  The  description  presents  a  complete  contrast  to  the  action  of 
'the  Jews,'  who  were  not  of  His  sheep  (ver.  26);  who,  though  He 
had  so  often  manifested  Himself  to  them  by  word  and  work,  yet  had 
never  recognized  His  voice,  but  came  to  Him  saying:  '  If  Thou  be  the 
Christ,  tell  us  plainly.'  From  this  contrast  arises  the  order  of  the 
clauses  in  these  verses,  an  order  ditferent  from  that  in  ver.  14. 

Vers.  29,  30.  My  Father,  who  hath  given  them  unto  me, 
is  greater  than  all ;  and  no  one  is  able  to  pluck  out  of  the 
Father's  hand.  land  the  Father  are  one.  The  apparent  ob- 
ject of  these  swords  is  to  establish  more  completely  the  safety  of 
His  sheep.  But  in  answering  this  purpose  they  also  answer  a  still 
higher  end ;  they  are  a  revelation  of  Jesus  Himself.  In  effect  they 
give  a  reply  to  the  question  of  the  Jews,  but  such  a  reply  as  only  the 
heart  prepared  to  listen  to  the  truth  will  receive.  Jesus  has  spoken 
of  'My  sheep;'  they  are  His  by  reason  of  His  Father's  gift.  The 
Father  who  has  given  will  maintain  the  gift :  and  He  is  greater  than 
all  who  could  seek  to  snatch  away  the  sheep, — none  can  snatch  aught 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  Father.  The  progress  of  the  thought  is  per- 
fectly simple,  but  the  transition  from  'my  Father'  to  'the  Father'  is 
full  of  meaning.  The  latter  name  is  fitly  used,  since  here  the  axiom 
of  Divine  Almightiness  is  expressed ;  the  same  name,  moreover,  is 
most  appropriate  in  a  passage  which  traces  the  development  of 
God's  purpose  to  make  men  His  sons  through  His  Son.  Jesus  has 
used  the  same  words  of  Himself  and  of  the  Father  ;  '  no  one  shall 
pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,' — 'no  one  can  pluck  out  of  the  Father's 
hand.  He  might  have  left  His  hearers  to  draw  the  certain  inference, 
but  He  will  so  far  grant  their  request  as  to  'tell'  this  'plainly;'  'I 
and  the  Father  are  one.'  There  is  perhaps  nothing  in  this  saying  that 
goes  beyond  the  revelation  of  chap.  5 ;  but  its  terseness  and  its  sim- 
ple force  give  it  a  new  significance.  Unity  of  action,  purpose,  power, 
may  be  what  the  context  chiefly  requires  us  to  recognise  as  expressed 
in  these  words  ;  but  the  impression  which  was  made  upon  the  Jews 
(ver.  31),  the  fuller  attainment  of  ver.  38,  the  analogy  of  chap.  5  and 
of  expressions  (still  more  closely  parallel)  in  chap.  17  forbid  us  to  de- 
part from  the  most  ancient  Christian  exposition  whicfh  sees  in  this 
saying  of  Jesus  no  less  than  a  claim  of  unity  of  essence  with  the 
Father. 

Ver.  31.  The  Jews  took  up  stones  again  to  stone  him. 
Their  view  of  the  blasphemy  of  His  words  is  given  more  fully  in  ver. 
33.  The  word  '  again '  carries  us  back  to  chap.  8 :  59,  where  a  sim- 
ilar attempt  is  recorded,  but  in  less  definite  language.     There  we  see 


10:  32-34.]  JOHN  X.  243 

32  again  to  stone  him.  Jesus  answered  them,  Many 
good    works  have  I  showed    you  from   the  Father; 

33  for  which  of  these  works  do  ye  stone  me  ?  The  Jews 
answered  him,  For  a  good  Avork  we  stone  thee  not, 
but  for  blasphemy ;    and  because  that  thou,  being  a 

34  man,  makest  thyself  God.  Jesus  answered  them, 
Is  it  not  written  in  your  law,  I  said.  Ye  are  gods  ? 

the  Jews  taking  up,  hastily  snatching  up,  stones  that  lay  near,  to  'cast 
on  Him :'  here  their  resolve  to  inflict  the  penalty  for  blasphemy  ap- 
pears more  distinctly  in  their  attempt  to  'stone  Him.'  The  two  words 
rendered  '  take  up '  are  also  different,  and  it  is  possible  that  the  Evan- 
gelist here  presents  the  Jews  as  bearing  up  the  stones  on  high,  in  the 
very  act  of  preparing  to  bury  Him  beneath  them.  The  climax 
ought  not  to  pass  unobserved. — They  are  arrested  by  His  own  words. 

Ver.  32.  Jesus  ans-wered  them,  Many  good  -works  have  I 
showed  you  from  the  Father ;  for  which  of  these  works 
do  ye  stone  me  ?  On  the  word  'good'  see  the  note  on  ver.  11  : 
every  work  He  has  shown  them  has  borne  the  perfect  stamp  of  a  work 
noble  and  perfect  in  its  kind,  for  He  has  shown  it  'from  the  Father,' 
who  sent  Him  and  ever  works  with  and  in  Him.  He  knew  that  they 
were  enraged  at  His  word,  and  yet  He  speaks  here  of  His  icorks :  the 
works  and  the  words  are  essentially  one, — alike  manifestations  of 
Himself. 

Ver.  33.  The  Jews  answered  him,  For  a  good  work  we 
stone  thee  not,  but  for  blasphemy  ;  and  because  that  thou, 
being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God.  These  words  show  conclu- 
sively how  the  saying  of  ver.  30  was  understood  by  those  who  heard 
it:  they  perceive  now  who  is  meant  by  'the  Father'  (comp.  8:  27), 
and  see  that  to  claim  oneness  with  Him  is  to  claim  Deity.  All  recol- 
lection of  'good  works'  and  indeed  all  evidence  whatever  they  cast 
away,  treating  such  a  claim  as  incapable  of  support  by  any  evidence. 

Ver.  34,  Jesus  answered  them,  Is  it  not  written  in  your 
law,  I  said,  Ye  are  gods?  The  quotation  is  from  Ps.  82,  (the 
word  'law'  being  used,  as  in  chap.  15:  25  and  some  other  places,  for 
the  Old  Testament  scriptures  generally),  'I  have  said,  Ye  are  gods, 
and  all  of  you  are  children  of  the  Most  High ;  but  ye  shall  die  like 
men,  and  fall  like  one  of  the  princes.'  The  psalm  is  a  reproof  of  un- 
righteous judges.  Its  opening  words  bring  before  us  God  judging 
'among  the  gods,' — that  is,  among  the  judges,  for  the  sacred  name  is 
in  other  passages  (Ex.21:  6;  22:  8,  and  probably  22 :  28)  given 
to  those  who  were  to  the  people  the  representatives  of  God,  and  gave 
judgment  in  His  name.  In  following  verses  of  the  psalm  as  far  as 
ver.  7,  it  is  supposed  by  some  that  God  Himself  is  the  Speaker 
(comp.  Ps.  1).  If  so,  the  words  '  Ye  are  gods'  are  here  quoted  as  if 
spoken  by  God;  and  in  the  next  verse  'he  called'  must  be  similarly 


244  JOHN  X.  [10:  35-38. 

35  If  he  called  them    gods,   unto    whom   the  word  of 
God    came    (and   the  Scripture  cannot  be   broken), 

36  say  ye  of  him,  whom  the  Father  ^sanctified  and  sent 
into   the  Avorld,  Thou  blasphemest ;    because  I  said, 

37  I  am  the  Son  of  God  ?  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my 

38  Father,  believe  me  not.      But  if  I  do  them,  though 
ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works:    that  ye  may 

1  Or,  consecrated* 

explained.  It  seems  more  likely,  however,  that  the  rebuke  of  the 
judges' injustice  is  administered  by  the  psalmist  in  his  own  person; 
and  in  ver.  35  the  meaning  will  be  that  the  law  'called,'  or  the  speaker 
implied  in  the  emphatic  '  1,'  viz.  the  psalmist  writing  under  inspira- 
tion from  God  and  expressing  His  mind.  In  any  case  the  pronoun 
'I'  is  strongly  marked, — I  myself,  who  utter  the  rebuke  and  had  fore- 
told the  punishment,  had  borne  witness  to  the  dignity  of  the  position 
of  the  judge. 

Vers.  35,  36.  If  (1)  the  speaker  in  the  psalm  called  men  -'gods' 
because  the  word  of  God  (the  expression  of  God's  will,  which,  as 
judges,  they  were  bound  to  carry  out)  was  given  to  them ;  and  if  (2) 
this  passage  of  scripture  cannot  be  broken,  cannot  be  set  aside,  but 
must  be  taken  as  inspired  by  God,  how  can  they  accuse  Jesus  of  blas- 
phemy ?  To  the  judges  the  '  word  of  God  came  :'  Jesus  was  sent  into 
the  world  by  the  Father  to  declare  His  will,  as  Himself  '  The  Word.' 
The  judges  were  commissioned  by  God  for  the  work  to  which  they 
proved  unfaithful :  He.  consecrated  by  the  Fatker  to  His  work,  had 
but  fulfilled  His  trust  when  He  declared  Himself  Son  of  God.  If  then 
the  judge,  as  a  partial  and  imperfect  expression  of  God  (if  we  may  so 
speak)  to  the  people  received  the  name  of  '  god,'  with  infinitely 
higher  right  may  Jesus  call  Himself  Son  of  God.  His  claim  of  the 
name  was  in  itself  no  foundation  for  their  charge:  their  own  law 
should  have  taught  them  this. 

Ver.  37.  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me 
not.  In  the  last  verse  'the  Father"  was  the  Name  of  which  Jesus 
spoke,  thus  bringing  together  in  thought  God  who  spoke  in  the  psalm 
and  His  Father  who  sent  Him  into  the  world.  Here,  after  the  men- 
tion of  'the  Son  of  God,'  He  says  'the  works  of  *  My  Father.'  If  He 
does  no  such  works  they  have  no  right  to  believe  His  word  and  ac- 
knowledge His  claims.     It  is  otherwise  if  He  does  them. 

Ver.  38.  If  He  does  the  works  of  His  Father,  then,  even  although 
they  might  be  unwilling  to  accept  His  witness  respecting  Himself,  the 
works  bear  a  testimony  they  are  bound  to  receive.  Receiving  this 
testimony  and  thus  learning  that  the  works.of  Jesus  are  the  Father's 
works,  men  will  know  that  He  and  the  Father  are  one,  the  Father 
abiding  in  Him,  and  He  in  the  Father.  But  this  is  not  a  truth  learnt 
once  for  all.     The  words  of  Jesus  are  :    that  ye  may  '  know '  (being 


10:  39-41.]  JOHN  X.  245 

39  know  and  understand  that  the  Father  is  in  me,  and 
I  in  the  Father.  They  sought  again  to  take  him : 
and  he  went  forth  out  of  their  hand. 

40  And  he  went  away  again  beyond  Jordan  into  the 
place   where   John   was   at  the  first  baptizing;   and 

41  there  he  abode.  And  many  came  unto  him ;  and 
they  said,  John  did  indeed  no  sign  :    but  all  things 

brought  to  conviction  by  the  testimony  of  the  works)  and  (from  that 
point  onwards  continually)  'recognise'  .  .  .  Their  eyes  once  opened, 
they  will  ever  see  in  the  works  tokens  of  the  Father's  presence. 

Ver.  39.  They  sought  again  to  seize  him  :  and  he  went 
forth  out  of  their  hand.  '  Again '  seems  to  point  back  to  chap. 
7,  where  the  same  word  'seize'  is  found  three  times  (vers.  80,  32,  44). 
We  cannot  suppose  that  the  Jews  had  laid  aside  their  design  of  ston- 
ing Him  in  consequence  of  the  words  just  spoken,  for  these  words 
would  either  lead  to  faith  or  repel  to  greater  enmity.  For  some  rea- 
son not  mentioned  they  now  seek  not  to  stone  Him  on  the  spot,  but  to 
seize  Him  and  carry  Him  away.  As  in  chap.  8 :  59,  '  He  went  forth' 
out  of  their  hand,  thus  illustrating  again  His  own  words  in  ver.  18. 

Ver.  40.  The  place  in  which  John  at  first  baptized  was  that  men- 
tioned in  chap.  1  :  28  (not  in  chap.  3:  22),  viz.  Bethany  beyond  the 
Jordan.  But  why  does  the  Evangelist  here  make  special  mention  of 
this  fact?  It  would  seem  that  we  have  another  illustration  of  his  ten- 
dency at  the  close  of  a  period  of  the  history  to  go  back  to  the  begin- 
ning of  that  period.  He  gathers  together  the  whole  ministry  of  Jesus 
up  to  this  time  under  one  point  of  view.  With  the  next  chapter  avb 
really  enter  on  the  final  scene  :  in  the  raising  of  Lazarus  the  work  of 
Jesus  reaches  its  culminating-point ;  by  that  miracle  His  rejection 
and  condemnation  by  the  Jews  is  made  certain.  And  as  in  a  moun- 
tain ascent  the  traveler  may  pause  before  attempting  the  highest  peak, 
and  survey  the  long  path  by  which  he  has  ascended,  so  the  Evangelist 
here  pauses  before  relating  the  last  struggle,  and  (by  mentioning  the 
association  of  the  place  and  not  the  name  of  the  place  itself)  leads  his 
readers  to  survey  with  him  all  the  period  of  the  ministry  of  Him  to 
whom  John  bore  witness.  Whatever  Jesus  had  since  done  or  said 
ratified  the  witness  borne  by  the  Baptist.  Possibly  it  was  because  of 
John's  testimony  that  Jesus  sought  this  spot  :  near  it  may  have  lived 
many  whose  hearts  had  been  prepared  for  His  teaching. 

Vers.  41,  42.  How  great  the  contrast  between  the  scene  presented 
here  and  those  of  the  preceding  chapters  !  He  came  to  the  Jews,  but, 
in  spite  of  works  and  word,  they  rejected  Him:  now  in  His  retire- 
ment, many  come  unto  Him,  and  many  believe  in  Him.  For  Jesus 
this  period  of  rest  is  a  period  not  of  peace  only,  but  also  of  joy  in 
successful  toil.  Another  contrast  implied  is  between  Jesus  and  the 
Baptist  'who  did  no  sign'  but  bare  witness  only.     He  being  dead  yet 


240  JOHN  X— XL  [10:  42—11:  1. 

42  whatsoever  John  spake  of  this  man  were  true.     And 
many  believed  on  him  there. 

Chapter  11:  1—44. 

The  liaising  of  Lazarus. — Jesus  the  Resurrection  and 
the  Life. 

1      Now  a  certain  man  was  sick,  Lazarus  of  Bethany, 

speaketh,  iu  that  his  testimony  is  leading  men  to  Jesus  in  the  very 
place  of  his  own  ministry  :  and  there  also  witness  is  borne  to  him,  in 
the  emphatic  acknowledgment  that  all  his  words  concerning  Jesus  had 
proved  true.  Nay,  even  beyond  the  experience  of  these  believers  we 
may  see  that  this  saying  expresses  truth,  for  in  His  most  memorable 
discourses  Jesus  fulfills  the  words  of  the  Baptist  recorded  in  chap.  1 
of  this  Gospel,  '  He  that  cometh  after  me  has  become  before  me  because 
He  was  before  me'  (1 :  15,  27,  30). 

The  Raising  of  Lazarus. — Jesus  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life,  vers.  1-44. 

CoxTENTS.— The  manifestation  of  Jesus  by  Himself  is  about  to  terminate  so  far  at 
least  as  the  world  is  concerned,  and  it  does  so  in  His  revealing  Himself  as  the  Resur- 
rection and  the  Life,  the  Conqueror  of  Death  in  the  verj'  height  of  its  power.  The 
raising  of  Lazarus  illustrates  this.  The  account  as  a  whole  divides  itself  into  two 
subordinate  parts — (1)  vers.  1-16;  (2)  vers.  17^4 — [This  chapter  is  the  gospel  of  com- 
fort at  the  open  grave.  The  raising  of  Lazarus  is  the  most  stupendous  of  the  quick- 
ening miracles  of  Jesus,  the  immediate  cause  of  His  death,  and  the  foreshadowing  of 
His  resurrection.  Spinoza  said,  if  he  could  believe  this,  he  would  have  no  diflSculty 
■with  all  the  other  miracles,  and  would  dnsh  to  pieces  his  pantheistic  philosophy,  and 
become  a  Christian.  The  false  explanations  (raising  from  a  trance;  a  symbolic  fic- 
tion; a  pious  fraud)  are  untenable,  and  explain  nothing.  The  historic  truth  is  abun- 
dantly attested  by  the  simplicity,  vivacity  and  circumstantiality  of  the  narrative,  the 
good  sense  and  honesty  of  Lazarus  and  his  sisters,  and  the  divine  character  of  Christ- 
The  only  serious  difiBculty  is  the  silence  of  the  other  Evangelists :  it  has  been  ex- 
plained by  a  delicate  regard  to  the  surviving  family,  or  better  by  the  fact  that  the 
first  three  Gospels  describe  only  the  Galilean  ministry  of  Jesus  till  His  solemn  entry 
into  Jerusalem  (Matt.  21).  WhUe  John  omits  the  raising  of  Jainis'  daughter  and  the 
widow's  son,  which  took  place  in  Galilee. — P.  S.] 

Yer.  1.  Now  a  certain  man  -was  sick,  Lazarus,  of  Bethany, 
from  the  village  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha.  The  scene 
of  the  miracle  to  be  related  in  this  chapter  is  Bethany,  t.  e.  '  House  of 
Dates,'  a  village  (now  small  and  poor)  about  two  miles  south-east  of 
Jerusalem  over  the  southern  shoulder  of  the  Mount  of  Olives.  [It 
was  the  peaceful  refuge  of  Jesus  from  hostile  Jerusalem  in  the  events 
before  the  crucifixion.]  Neither  here  nor  in  chap.  1 :  44  is  the  use  of 
the  two  prepositions  *  of  and  '  from '  intended  to  point  to  two  diflferent 


11:  2-5.]  JOHN  XL  247 

2  of  the  village  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha.  And 
it  was  that  Mary  which  anointed  the  Lord  with  oint- 
ment, and  wiped  his  feet  with  her  hair,  whose  brother 

3  Lazarus  was  sick.  The  sisters  therefore  sent  unto 
him,  saying,  Lord,  behold,  he  whom  thou  lovest  is 

4  sick.  But  when  Jesus  heard  it,  he  said,  This  sickness 
is  not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  ■ 

5  Son  of  God  may  be  glorified  thereby.     I^ow  Jesus 

places,  one  the  present  abode,  the  other  the  original  home ;  but  Beth- 
any itself  is  '  the  village  of  Mary  and  her  sister  Martha.'  The  cir- 
cumstance referred  to  in  ver.  2  probably  accounts  for  the  prior  men- 
tion of  Mary ;  for  Martha  appears  to  have  been  the  elder  sister  (see 
Luke  10:  38).  Ihe  name  Lazarus  is  Hebrew  (a  shortened  form  of 
Eleazar),  but  with  a  Greek  termination. — [Martha  represents  the  ac- 
tive, outward,  practical  life,  Mary  the  passive,  inward,  contemplative 
type.  A  similar  diflFerence  distinguishes  Peter  and  John  among  the 
apostles.     Both  are  equally  necessary  in  the  Church. — P.  S.] 

Ver.  2.  (Now  it  ^vas  that  Mary  -who  anointed  the  Lord 
■with  ointment,  and  "w^iped  his  feet  -with  her  hair,  vrhose 
brother  Lazarus  was  sick.)  These  words  seem  intended  to  bring 
into  view  the  closeness  of  the  relation  between  Jesus  and  Mary. 
There  are  particulars  in  which  this  narrative  closely  resembles  that 
of  chap.  2:  1-11;  as  there  we  have  the  closest  tie  of  kindred,  so 
here  we  read  of  the  most  intimate  friendship.  But  the  one  tie  as  well 
as  the  other  must  yield  to  the  voice  of  God.  The  anointing  was  when 
John  wrote  well  and  widely  known  (see  Matt.  26:  13);  it  is  here 
specially  mentioned  in  anticipation  of  chap.  12. 

Ver.  3.  The  confidence  of  the  sisters  in  the  love  and  in  the  power 
of  Jesus  is  shown  by  the  absence  of  any  request :  the  message  is  a 
tender  and  delicate  expression  of  their  need.  With  the  description 
of  Lazarus  compare  chap.  20:  2  (where  the  same  verb  for  'love,'  is 
used),  'the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved.' 

Ver.  4.  The  reply  of  Jesus  is  not  represented  as  addressed  to  the 
messengers  sent,  or  to  the  apostles,  though  probably  spoken  in  the 
hearing  of  both.  The  point  of  importance  is  the  foreknowledge  of 
Jesus,  to  whom  were  even  now  present  both  the  miracle  and  the  re- 
sult. The  first  result  is  expressed  in  the  closing  words:  'that  the 
Son  of  God  may  be  glorified  thereby ;'  the  ultimate  aim  in  the  former 
clause:  'for  the  glory  of  God."  The  true  design  of  the  sickness  is  not 
to  bring  death  to  Lazarus,  but  to  glorify  the  Son  of  God,  and  by  this 
means  to  bring  glory  to  the  Father.     Compare  chap.  17:  1. 

Ver.  5.  Now  Jesus  loved  Martha,  and  her  sister,  and 
Lazarus.  This  simple  record  of  His  love  for  this  family  (note  how 
significant  is  the  separate  mention  of  each  one  of  the  three)  connects 
itself  both  with  ver.  4  and  also  with  the  statement  of  vers.  5  and  6, 


248  JOHN  XI.  [11:  6-10. 

6  loved  Martha,  and  her  sister,  and  Lazarus.  When 
therefore  he  heard  that  he  was  sick,  he  abode  at  that 

7  time  two  days  in  the  place  where  he  was.  Then  after 
this  he  saith  to  the  disciples,  Let  us  go  into  Judaea 

8  again.  The  disciples  say  unto  him,  Rabbi,  the  Jews 
were  but  now  seeking  to  stone  thee;  and  goest  thou 

9  thither  again?  Jesus  answered.  Are  there  not  twelve 
hours  in  the  day?  If  a  man  walk  in  the  day,  he 
stumbleth  not,  because  he  seeth  the  light  of  this  world. 

10  But  if  a  man  walk  in  the  night,  he  stumbleth,  because 

these  verses  really  constituting  one  sentence.  The  object  of  the  Evan- 
gelist is  to  set  before  us  the  mind  of  Jesus :  in  ver,  4  we  see  the  first 
principle  of  all,  supreme  regard  to  the  glory  of  God ;  here  His  love 
for  those  on  whom  the  affliction  must  fall,  and  whom  (ver.  6)  He  can- 
not help  save  at  the  hour  appointed  by  His  Father.  But  when  that 
hour  has  come,  His  obedience  to  His  Father's  will  and  His  love  for 
His  sorrowing  friends  unite  in  leading  Him  to  Bethany  (ver.  7). — 
The  word  'loved'  [?);/a-a]  used  in  this  verse  is  different  from  that 
which  we  find  in  ver.  3  [0</*fZf].  The  sisters  use  that  which  belongs 
to  tender  human  friendship  (see  note  on  chap.  5:  20} ;  the  Evangelist 
the  more  lofty  word,  which  so  often  expresses  the  relation  of  Jesus  to 
His  disciples.  He  loved  them  with  a  love  with  which  the  thought  of 
His  Father's  love  to  Himself  is  mingled. — [The  Roman  tradition  falsely 
identifies  Mary  of  Bethany  with  Mary  of  Magdala  and  the  sinful 
woman  (Luke  7:  37).     See  against  this  error  Lange's  Comm.,  p.  340.] 

Vers.  6,  7.  Jesus  does  not  say  'to  Bethany,'  but  to  'Judaea;'  for 
He  knows  that  this  visit  to  Bethany  will  bring  Him  again  into  the 
midst  of  His  enemies,  'the  Jews,'  and  will  lead  to  a  development  of 
their  hatred  and  malice,  which  will  find  satisfaction  only  in  His 
death.  In  the  full  consciousness  of  what  awaits  Him,  He  prepares  to 
depart  for  Bethany. 

Ver.  8.  The  words  'but  now'  (only  just  now)  seem  to  show  that 
the  sojourn  in  Perosa  (chap.  10:  40)  was  short.  The  disciples  see 
clearly  that  to  go  to  Bethany  is  as  perilous  as  to  return  to  Jerusalem, 
where  He  has  but  now  escaped  from  the  rage  of  '  the  Jews '  (chap. 
10:31). 

Vers.  9,  10.  This  is  the  parable  of  chap.  9 :  4  in  an  expanded 
form.  By  the  light  which  God  makes  to  shine  in  the  world.  He  marks 
out  twelve  hours  as  the  appointed  time  for  '  walking,'  for  active  work; 
by  the  absence  of  this  light,  the  night  is  marked  out  as  the  time  when 
there  can  be  no  such  work.  So  is  the  life  of  every  man  ordei'ed  by 
God.  There  is  the  appointed  time  for  work,  indicated  by  the  Provi- 
dence of  God:  in  following  the  intimations  of  His  will,  the  man  will 
*not  stumble,'  will  take  no  false  step.    He  will  not  shorten  the  proper 


II:  11-15]  JOHN  XI.  249 

11  the  light  is  not  in  him.  These  things  spake  he;  and 
after  this  Jje  saith  unto  them,  Our  friend  Lazarus  is 
fallen  asleep ;  but  I  go,  that  I  may  awake  him  out  of 

12  sleep.     The  disciples  therefore  said  unto  him.  Lord, 

13  if  he  is  fallen  asleep,  he  will  h-ecover.  Xow  Jesus 
had  spoken  of  his  death :  but  they  thought  that  he 

14  spake  of  taking  rest  in  sleep.     Then  eTesus  therefore 

15  said  unto  them  plainly,  Lazarus  is  dead.  And  I  am 
glad  for  your  sakes  that  I  was  not  there,  to  the  intent 
ye   may  believe;   nevertheless   let  us  go  unto  him. 

1  Gr.  be  saved. 

time  for  'walking;'  for  throughout  the  appointed  twelve  hours  the 
finger  of  God  will  show  the  appointed  work.  It  is  only  when  man 
misses  the  Divine  guidance,  doing  what  no  providential  teaching  has 
marked  out,  that  he  stumbleth  :  then  he  may  well  stumble,  for  the 
light  (which  during  the  day  shines  round  him)  is  no  longer  in  him. 
As  applied  to  Himself  the  words  of  Jesus  mean:  'Following  the  will 
of  God,  which  leads  me  into  Judsea  again,  I  am  walking  in  the  light, 
I  cannot  "stumble"  whatever  may  befall  Me  there.' 

Ver.  11.  No  second  message  has  been  sent  to  Him;  by  His  own 
Divine  knowledge  He  speaks  of  the  death  of  His  friend. 

Ver.  12.  The  disciples  therefore  said  unto  him,  Lord,  if  he 
hath  fallen  asleep,  he  shall  be  saved.  We  can  hardly  escape 
the  thought  that  they  have  in  their  mind  some  tidings  brought  at  the 
same  time  with  the  message  of  ver.  3,  descriptive  of  the  nature  of  the 
illness.  Was  it  some  raging  fever  that  threatened  the  life  of  Lazarus, 
then,  if  calm  slumber  has  come  upon  him,  he  is  safe!  Surely  there- 
fore it  is  no  longer  necessary  for  their  Lord  to  expose  Himself  to  peril 
by  returning  to  Judaea. 

Ver.  13.  The  figure  can  hardly  have  been  here  used  by  Jesus  for 
the  first  time.  The  misconception  of  His  meaning  would  seem  to 
have  arisen  from  His  words  in  ver.  4,  and  from  His  delay  in  setting 
out  for  Bethany. 

Vers.  14,  15.  The  words  'for  your  sakes'  are  explained  by  the 
clause  which  follows,  'that  ye  may  believe.'  Already  they  believed 
in  Him ;  but  '  every  new  flight  of  faith  is  in  its  degree  a  new  begin- 
ning of  faith,  comp.  chap.  2:  11'  (Meyer).  Had  he  come  to  Bethany 
while  Lazarus  lay  sick.  He  would  have  healed  his  sickness;  but  great 
as  might  have  been  the  miracle  if  He  had  done  so,  or  if,  arriving  when 
Lazarus  had  just  breathed  His  last.  He  had  called  back  the  departing 
spirit,  in  neither  case  would  the  disciples  have  seen  the  crowning 
'  manifestation '  of  their  Lord,  or  have  believed  in  Him  as  '  the  Resur- 
rection and  the  Life.'  The  disciples  are  now  awakened  to  the  fact 
that  they  are  moving  into  the  presence  of  death. 


250  JOHN  XL  [11:  16,17. 

16  Thomas  therefore,  who  is  called  ^Didymus,  said  unto 
his  fellow-disciples,  Let  us  also  go,  that  we  inay  die 
with  him. 

17  So  when  Jesus  came,  he  found  that  he  had  been 

1  That  is,  Twin. 

Ver.  16.  Let  us  also  go,  that  "we  may  die  Tvith  him.  That 
is,  with  Jesus  (not  with  Lazai^us).  It  is  plain  that  Jesus  cannot  be 
turned  aside  by  their  counsels  or  prayers ;  He  is  certainly  about  to 
return  to  Judaea,  at  the  peril  of  His  life.  As  they  cannot  save  Him, 
they  may  at  least  share  His  fate.  This  is  the  exhortation  of  Thomas 
to  his  fellow-disciples ;  and  it  would  seem  that  they  shared  his  feel- 
ings, for  the  word  '  fellow-disciples '  (not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament),  as  compared  with  'the  other  disciples'  of  20:  25,  binds 
all  the  disciples  into  one.  The  language  is  undoubtedly  that  of  fer- 
vent love  to  Jesus;  but  it  is  also  the  language  of  despair  and  vanished 
hope.  This  is  the  end  of  all — death  ;  not  the  Messianic  kingdom,  not 
life.  Whether  we  are  right  in  thinking  that  this  feeling  was  shared 
by  the  other  disciples,  or  not,  it  is  very  natural  that  Thomas  should 
be  the  one  to  give  expression  to  it.  From  chap.  14 :  5 ;  20 :  24,  25, 
we  clearly  perceive  that  sight  is  what  he  wants:  when  he  sees  not, 
he  gives  himself  up  to  despondency.  It  is  remarkable  that  at  every 
mention  of  this  apostle,  John  adds  the  Greek  interpretation  (Didy- 
mus,  that  is.  Twin)  of  the  Aramaic  name.  It  has  been  supposed  that 
Didymus  is  the  name  with  which  Gentile  Christians  became  most 
familiar;  but  if  so,  it  is  singular  that  no  other  name  than  Thomas  is 
found  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Acts.  By  others  it  is  urged 
that  the  word  '  Twin '  is  used  with  symbolic  meaning,  pointing  to  the 
two-fold  nature  of  this  apostle,  in  whom  unbelief  and  faith,  hope  and 
tendency  to  despair,  were  strangely  blended.  With  this  statement 
the  first  paragraph  of  this  narrative  ends.  The  last  words:  'Let  us 
also  go,  that  we  may  die  with  him,'  fitly  close  a  section  which,  as 
Luther  remarks,  is  dominated  by  the  thought  of  death. 

Ver.  17.  When  therefore  Jesus  came,  he  found  that  he 
had  Iain  in  the  tomb  four  days  already.  The  situation  of  the 
Pei'sean  Bethany  (chap.  10 :  40j  is  so  uncertain  that  we  are  unable  to 
give  a  certain  explanation  of  these  four  days.  The  distance  from  Je- 
rusalem to  the  nearest  point  of  the  country  beyond  the  Jordan  is  not 
much  more  than  twenty  miles,  and  could  be  traversed  in  a  day.  If 
then  this  was  the  situation  of  Bethany  beyond  the  Jordan,  Jesus  would 
reach  the  village  of  Martha  and  Mary  on  the  second  day  from  the 
commencement  of  His  journey,  and  the  fourth  day  from  the  reception 
of  the  news  that  Lazarus  was  sick  (ver.  6).  In  this  case  the  death  of 
Lazarus  must  speedily  have  followed  the  departure  of  the  messenger, 
and  according  to  Eastern  custom  the  body  must  on  the  same  day  have 
been  laid  in  the  tomb.  Even  if  Bethany  in  Persea  be  placed  at  a 
somewhat  greater  distance  from  Jerusalem,  this  explanation  removes 


11:  18-20.]  JOHN  XL  251 

18  in  the  tomb  four  days  already.     Now  Bethany  was 

19  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  about  fifteen  furlongs  off;  and 
many  of  the  Jews  had  come  to  Martha  and  Mary, 

20  to  console  them  concerning  their  brother.  ]Martha 
therefore,  when  she  heard  that  Jesus  was  coming, 
went  and  met  him :  but  Mary  still  sat  in  the  house. 

all  difficulties.  Still  it  must  be  confessed  that  it  is  very  natural  to 
regard  ver.  11  as  spoken  at  the  moment  of  death,  though  there  is 
nothing  in  the  words  '  hath  fallen  asleep '  to  compel  us  to  take  this 
view.  In  that  case,  the  journey  (if  commenced  immediately)  must 
have  occupied  more  than  two  whole  days;  yet  even  in  this  there  is 
nothing  difficult  or  improbable.  Jesus  reaches  the  village  where  the 
sisters  lived  on  the  fourth  day  of  their  mourning,  when  the  lapse  of 
time  had  brought  home  to  them  the  hopelessness  of  their  case. 

Ver.  18.  NoTv  Bethany  is  nigh  unto  Jerusalem,  about  fif- 
teen furlongs  off.  This  verse  is  of  importance,  not  merely  as  pre- 
paring for  ver.  19,  but  also  as  showing  that  Jesus  in  visiting  Bethany 
was  coming  into  the  immediate  presence  of  His  enemies.  They  had 
pronounced  Him  a  blasphemer,  and  they  were  determined  to  bring 
Him  to  the  blasphemer's  death  (10:  31,  39), —  ['Furlong'  or  'stadium' 
=125  paces.  Fifteen  furlougs=about  two  miles.  The  short  distance 
is  mentioned  to  account  for  the  presence  of  so  many  Jews  from  Jeru- 
salem.— P.  S.] 

Ver.  19.  And  many  of  the  JeTvs  had  come  to  Martha  and 
Mary,  to  comfort  them  concerning  their  brother.  Amongst 
those  who  came  to  pay  to  the  bereaved  sisters  the  visits  of  condolence 
during  the  seven  days  of  mourning,  were  many  of  the  leaders  of  the 
people,  many  who  were  also  leaders  in  hostility  to  Jesus.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  family  of  Bethany  was  one  of  distinction,  and  even  their 
friendship  to  Jesus  could  not  be  a  bar  to  their  receiving  from  the  Jews 
these  offices  of  respect  and  sympathy.  But  this  is  not  the  only  con- 
trast which  the  mention  of  the  Jews  calls  forth.  As  leaders  of  the 
people,  ruling  in  '  the  city  of  their  solemnities,'  they  were  the  repre- 
sentatives of  their  Church  and  religion;  and  the  'comfort'  they  can 
oflFer  in  the  presence  of  death  is  no  inapt  symbol  of  all  that  Judaism 
could  do  for  the  mourner.  Thus  on  the  one  side  we  have  human  sor- 
row and  the  vanity  of  human  comfort  in  the  presence  of  death ;  on 
the  other  side  we  have  Him  who  is  the  Life. 

Ver.  20.  Martha  therefore,  -when  she  heard  that  Jesus 
was  coming,  went  and  met  him ;  but  Mary  still  sat  in  the 
house.  Every  reader  must  be  struck  with  the  remarkable  coinci- 
dence between  this  narrative  and  that  of  Luke  10 :  38,  39,  in  the  por- 
traiture of  the  two  sisters.  Martha,  even  in  the  midst  of  her  sor- 
row occupied  with  attention  to  family  concerns,  sees  the  messenger 
who  announces  the  approach  of  Jesus  and  goes  forth  to  meet  Him, 
outside  the  village  (ver.  30).     Mary  absorbed  in  her  grief,  hears  noth- 


252  JOHN  XI.  [11:  21-24. 

21  Martha  therefore    said    unto    Jesus,    Lord,    if   thou 

22  hadst   been    here,  my  brother   had  not  died.      And 
even  now  I  know  that  whatsoever  thou  shalt  ask  of 

23  God,  God  will  give  thee.     Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Thy 

24  brother  shall  rise  again.     Martha  saith  unto  him,  I 
know  that  he  shall  rise  again  in  the  resurrection  at 

ing  of  the  message :  it  is  not  until  Martha  returns  to  her  that  she 
learns  that  Jesus  is  near. 

Yer.  21,  Martha  therefore  said  unto  Jesus,  Loid,  if  thou 
hadst  been  here,  my  brother  had  not  died.  Her  first  words 
express  no  reproach,  but  only  the  bitter  thought  of  help  come  too  late. 
In  His  presence  her  brother  coulJ  not  have  died  (comp.  yer.  15).  Of 
the  possibility  that  Jesus  might  have  spoken  the  word  cf  help,  even 
though  their  message  might  reach  Him  too  late  to  bring  Him  to  their 
dying  brother,  she  says  nothing,  though  the  Jews,  unchecked  by  the 
reverence  of  love,  freely  ask  the  question  among  themselves  {\ev.  37). 

Ver.  22.  And  even  no-w  I  know  that  "whatsoever  things 
thou  shalt  ask  of  God,  God  -will  give  thee.  The  words  of  this 
verse  are  very  remarkable.  The  presence  of  the  great  Friend  and 
Helper  seems  to  give  a  sudden  quickening  to  Martha's  faith.  She 
had  probably  heard  of  the  words  of  Jesus  when  the  tidings  of  the 
sickness  of  Lazarus  reached  Him  (ver.  4)  ;  and  these  words  (which 
no  doubt  sorrow  of  heart  and  painful  waiting  had  almost  banished 
from  her  thought)  surely  gave  ground  for  hope  *  even  now.'  And  yet 
though  truly  expressive  of  the  firmest  confidence  in  Jesus,  her  words 
are  vague  ;  and  the  later  narrative  seems  to  prove  that  no  definite  ex- 
pectation was  present  to  her  mind.  The  language  is  rather  that  of 
one  who  so  believes  in  Jesus  as  to  be  assured  that,  where  He  is,  help 
and  blessing  cannot  be  absent. 

Yer.  23,  Jesus  saith  unto  her.  Thy  brother  shall  rise 
again.  The  words  are  designedly  ambiguous, — spoken  to  try  her 
faith.  Like  our  Lord's  parables,  they  contain  that  of  which  faith  may 
take  hold  and  be  raised  into  a  higher  region,  but  which  unbelief  or 
dulness  of  heart  will  miss.  Will  the  hope  that  Martha's  words  have 
vaguely  expressed  now  become  clear  and  definite  ?  At  all  events  the 
answer  of  Jesus  will  make  her  conscious  to  herself  of  what  her  faith 
really  was. 

Yer.  24.  Martha  said  unto  him,  I  know  that  he  shall  rise 
again  in  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day,  Jesus  has  told  her 
only  what  she  knew,  for  every  true  Israelite  believed  that  in  the  last 
day  the  just  would  rise.  How  vague  the  thought  embodied  in  these 
words  can  hardly  be  understood  by  us,  in  whom  the  same  words 
awaken  memories  of  a  Resurrection  in  the  past  which  brings  to  us 
true  knowledge  of  the  resurrection  at  the  last  day.  And  if  even  with 
us,  in  the  first  hours  of  our  sorrow,  the  clear  doctrine  avails  so  little, 
how  small  must  have  been  the  comfort  which  the  believing  Israelite 


11:  25-27.]  JOHN  XI.  253 

25  the  last  day.     Jesus  said   unto  her,  I  am  the  resur- 
rection and  the  life  :    he  that  believeth  on  me,  though  , 

26  he  die,  yet  shall  he  live :  and  whosoever  liveth  and  j 
believeth  ou  me  shall  never  die.      Believest  thou  this?  ^ 

27  She  said  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord  :    I  have  believed  that 
thou  art   the    Christ,  the  Son  of  God,   even  he  that 

could  attain  in  the  presence  of  the  dead  !  Martha's  words  have  now 
lost  the -hope  which  the  sight  of  Jesus  awakened  :  the  present  sorrow 
seems  to  admit  of  no  relief.  This  moment  of  greatest  need  Jesus 
chooses  for  the  greatest  revelation  of  Himself.  When  all  else  has  been 
seen  to  fail  He  will  comfort. 

Vers.  25,  26.  The  emphasis  falls  on  the  first  two  words,  *  I,'  'am.' 
Martha's  first  expression  of  faith  and  hope  had  shown  how  imper- 
fectly she  knew  Jesus  Himself:  to  Himself  alone  His  words  now  point. 
Her  later  words  dwell  on  the  resurrection  in  the  remoter  future  : 
Jesus  says,  '  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life.'  Alike  in  the  future 
and  in  the  present,  life  is  unchangeable  in  Him  (chap.  1 :  4), — and 
that  the  life  which  triumphs  over  death  ('resurrection")  the  life  by 
which  death  is  excluded  and  annulled.  In  other  passages  we  read  of 
Jesus  as  the  Life,  here  only  as  the  Resurrection  :  the  latter  thought  is 
in  truth  contained  in  the  former,  and  needs  not  distinct  expression 
save  in  the  presence  of  the  apparent  victory  of  death.  It  is  possible 
that  the  meaning  of  our  Lords  words  is  the  resurrection  and  the  life 
u-htch  follou-s  the  resurrection, — in  Him  His  people  rise  again,  and, 
having  risen,  live  for  ever;  but  it  is  far  more  probable  that  this  is 
only  one  part  of  the  meaning.  Because  He  is  the  Life,  in  the  highest 
and  absolute  sense  of  this  word,  therefore  He  is  the  resurrection.  He 
that  believes  in  Him  becomes  one  with  Him :  every  one,  therefore, 
that  believes  in  Him  possesses  this  victorious  life.  If  he  has  died, 
yet  life  is  his  :  if  he  still  lives  among  men,  this  earthly  life  is  but  an 
emblem  and  a  part  of  that  all-embracing  life  which  shall  endure  for 
ever  in  union  with  the  Lord  of  life.  In  all  this  the  law  which  limits 
man's  life  on  earth  is  not  forgotten,  but  a  revelation  is  given  to  man 
which  changes  the  meaning  of  death.  As  Godet  beautifully  says  : 
'  Every  believer  is  in  reality  and  for  ever  sheltered  from  death.  To 
die  in  full  light,  in  the  serene  brightness  of  the  life  which  is  in  Jesus, 
and  to  continue  to  live  in  Him,  is  no  longer  that  which  human  lan- 
guage designates  by  the  name  of  death.  It  is  as  if  Jesus  said  :  In  me 
he  who  is  dead  is  sure  of  life,  and  he  who  lives  is  sure  never  to  die.' 
The  original,  indeed,  is  much  more  expressive  than  we  can  well  bring 
out  in  English,  'Shall  never  unto  eternity  die.'  To  the  question,  *  Be- 
lievest thou  this  ?'  Martha  answers  (and  the  form  of  her  answer  is 
characteristic  I  : — 

Yer.  27.  She  saith  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord  :  I  have  believed 
that  thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  he  that  cometh 
into  the  "world.      The  substitution  of   'I   have    believed'   for  'I 


254  JOHN  XI.  [11;  28-32. 

28  Cometh  into  the  world.  And  when  he  had  said 
this,  she  went  away,  and  called  Mary  %er  sister  se- 
cretly, saying,  The  ^Master  is  here,  and  calleth  thee. 

29  And  she,  when  she  heard  it,  arose  quickly,  and  went 

30  unto  him.  (Now  Jesus  was  not  yet  come  into  the 
village,  but  was  still  in  the  place  where  Martha  met 

31  him).  The  Jews  then  which  were  with  her  in  the 
house,  and  were  comforting  her,  when  they  saw 
Mary,  that  she  rose  up  quickly  and  went  out,  follow- 
ed her,  supposing  that  she  was  going  unto  the  tomb 

32  to   weep^   there.      Mary    therefore,  when   she   came 

1  Or,  her  sister,  saying  secretly.  2  Or,  Teacher.  3  Qr.  wail. 

believe'  is  striking.  It  seems  to,  imply  that  she  goes  back  on  her  pre- 
vious belief, — securely  founded,  never  shaken, — in  which  she  knows 
that  all  He  requires  must  be  contained.  His  last  words  have  been  in 
some  measure  new  and  unfamiliar,  and  in  her  present  state  of  mind 
she  is  incapable  of  comparing  the  old  and  the  new.  But  that  which 
she  has  believed  and  still  believes  contains  the  fullest  recognition  of 
her  Lord.  She  has  received  Him  as  the  fulfilment  of  Messianic  hope, 
the  revelation  of  the  Divine  to  man,  the  long-expected  Redeemer  of  the 
world. 

Ver.  28.  And  -when  she  had  so  said,  she  -went  a-way, 
and  called  Mary  her  sister,  saying  secretly.  The  Teacher 
is  come,  and  calleth  thee.  We  cannot  doubt  that  Mary  until  now 
had  been  in  ignorance  of  the  coming  of  Jesus,  or  that  it  was  at  His 
bidding  that  Martha  told  her  sister  secretly  of  His  call  for  her.  That 
which  He  was  about  to  do  He  would  have  faith,  not  unbelief,  to  see ; 
therefore  Mary  must  be  called  '  secretly.'  " 

Ver.  29.  And  she,  when  she  heard  it,  arose  quickly,  and 
■went  unto  him.  Mark  the  characteristic  touch  in  the  words 
'arose  quickly'  (comp.  ver.  20).  'Went  unto,'  i.  «.,  started  on  her 
way,  for  it  is  in  ver.  32  that  the  actual  coming  is  spoken  of. 

Ver.  30.  Now  Jesus  vras  not  yet  come  into  the  village. 
Avoiding  the  presence  of  'the  Jews,'  so  painful  and  incongruous  at 
such  a  time.     This  verse  is  purely  parenthetical. 

Ver.  31.  Mary  sought  to  go  alone,  but,  according  to  the  custom  of 
the  East,  the  friends  who  were  with  her  attend  her  to  the  tomb  to 
join  in  her  lamentation  over  the  dead.  That  they  will  meet  Jesus  has 
apparently  not  entered  into  their  thought. 

Ver.  32.  Her  first  words  are  nearly  the  same  as  her  sister's  :  there 
is  only  in  the  Greek  a  slight  diff'erence  in  the  place  of  *  m?/  brother' 
which  gives  a  touching  emphasis  to  the  expression  of  personal  loss. 
Often  may  the  sisters  have  repeated  such  words  during  their  hours  of 
anguish,  when  their  brother  was  sinking  before  their  eyes.     Mary's 


11:  33.]  JOHN  XL  255 

where  Jesus  was,  and  saw  him,  fell  down  at  his 
feet,  saying  unto  him  Lord,  if  thou  hadst  been  here, 
33  my  brother  had  not  died.  AVhen  Jesus  therefore 
saw  her  ^weeping,  and  the  Jews  also  Hveeping  which 
came  with  her,  he  ^groaned   in   the  spirit,  and  ^was 

1  Gr.  wailing.      2  Or,  was  moved  with  indignation  in  the  spirit.         ^Gr.  troubled  hiviself. 

absorbing  grief  makes  other  words  impossible  :   she  falls  at  the  feet  of 
Jesus  weeping. 

Ver.  33.  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  her  lamenting,  and 
the  Jews  lamenting  which  came  with  her,  he  was  moved 
w^ith  indignation  in  his  spirit,  and  troubled  himself.  There 
is  little  doubt  that  the  first  word  describing  the  emotion  [eveSp'T^f/OaTo'] 
of  Jesus  denotes  rather  anger  than  sorrow.  Such  is  its  regu- 
lar meaning  ;  and,  though  NeAV  Testament  usage  partly  gives  a  dif- 
ferent turn  to  the  word,  yet  in  every  passage  it  implies  a  severity  of 
tone  and  feeling  that  is  very  different  from  gri  f.  In  Mark  1-4:  5  it 
expresses  indignation  at  what  appeared  reckless  waste,  and  in  Matt. 
9 :  30  and  Mark  1 :  43  it  denotes  stern  dealing,  a  severity  that 
marked  the  giving  of  the  charge  ;  while  in  the  Septuagint  the  noun 
derived  from  the  verb  is  used  to  translate  the  Hebrew  noun  signify- 
ing indignation  or  anger.  The  only  other  passage  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  which  we  find  the  word  is  ver.  38  of  this  chapter.  That  we 
are  to  understand  it  as  implying  anger  seems  thus  to  be  clear,  and  we 
are  strengthened  in  this  conclusion  by  the  fact  that  the  early  Greek 
fathers  take  it  in  this  sense.  It  is  more  difficult  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion, At  what  was  Jesus  angry?  It  has  been  replied — (1)  at  Himself, 
because  He  was  moved  to  a  sympathy  and  compassion  which  it  was 
needful  to  restrain.  In  this  case  the  words  '  His  spirit'  are  supposed  to 
be  directly  governed  by  the  verb — '  was  indignant  at  His  spirit.'  But 
such  a  use  of  *  spirit '  is  surely  impossible,  while  the  explanation  as  a 
whole  does  violence  to  those  conceptions  of  the  humanity  of  our  Lord 
which  this  very  Gospel  teaches  us  to  form  ; — (2j  at  the  unbelief  and 
hypocritical  weeping  of  '  the  Jews,'  But  many  of  them  were  to  be- 
lieve (ver.  45) ;  and  there  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  their  weeping 
was  not  genuine.  Besides  this,  the  emotion  of  Jesus  is  traced  to  the 
lamenting  of  Mary  not  less  than  to  that  of  the  Jews;  and  the  whole 
narrative  gains  immeasurably  in  force  if  we  suppose  the  latter  to  have 
been  as  sincere  as  the  former; — (3)  at  the  misery  brought  into  the 
world  by  sin.  This  explanation  appears  upon  the  whole  to  be  the 
most  probable.*  As  to  the  words  'in  His  spirit,'  without  entering  into 

*['In  this  heart-rending  scene  of  mourning:  the  grave  of  the  departed  friend,  the 
broken  hearts  of  the  beloved  sisters,  and  the  tears  of  the  ft'Uow-mourners,  Jesus  saw 
a  miniature  picture  of  the  world  of  human  sorrow,  and  was  overwhelmed  at  once 
with  holy  indignation  at  sin  which  caused  this  fearful  desolation,  and  with  tender 
Bpmpathy  for  the  sufferers,  which  soon  found  vent  in  tears. — Der  Mcnschhed  gamer 
Tammer  fusst  mich  an.' — P.  S.] 


256  JOHN  XI.  [11:  34-37. 

34  troubled,  and  said,  Where  have  ye  laid  him  ?     They 

35  say   unto   him,   Lord,  come   and   see.     Jesus   wept. 

36  The  Jews  therefore  said,  Behold  how  he  loved  him ! 

37  But  some  of  them  said.  Could  not  this  man,  which 
opened  the  eyes  of  him  that  Avas  blind,  have  caused 

any  discussion  of  a  difficult  subject,  we  may  say  that,  '  as  the  '  spirit' 
denotes  the  highest  (and  so  to  speak)  innermost  part  of  man's  nature, 
the  hmguage  shows  that  our  Lord's  nature  was  stirred  to  its  very 
depth.  This  reference  to  the  spirit  assists  us  in  understanding  tlie 
words  that  follow  '  and  troubled  Himself :'  the  indignation  and  hor- 
ror of  the  spirit  threw  the  Avhole  '  self  into  disturbance.  The  mean- 
ing of  chap.  13  :  21,  where  a  similar  expression  occurs,  is  substan- 
tially the  same  :  there  we  read  that,  at  the  thought  of  the  presence  of 
sin,  of  such  evil  as  was  about  to  show  itself  in  His  betrayal  by  Judas, 
Jesus  was  'troubled'  (that  is,  agitated,  disturbed)  'in  His  spirit.' 

Vers.  34,  35.  And  he  said,  "Where  have  ye  laid  him? 
They  say  unto  him,  Lord,  come  and  see.  Jesus  -wept. 
The  question  is  addressed  to  the  sisters,  and  '  the  Jews '  give  place  to 
them  in  thought,  for  it  is  in  sympathy  with  the  bitter  anguish  of  those 
whom  He  loves  (well  though  He  knows  that  He  is  about  to  assuage 
their  grief)  that  the  tears  of  Jesus  slx^  shed.  The  word  differs  from 
that  used  in  vers.  31,  33,  where  the  meaning  is  not  calm  weeping,  but 
lamentation  and  wailing.  —  ['Jesus  wept.'  The  shortest  verse  in  the 
Bible,  and  yet  one  of  the  most  significant.  He  wept  three  times : 
tears  of  friendship  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  ;  tears  of  sorrow  over  unbe- 
lieving Jerusalem  (Luke  19:  41) ;  tears  of  bloody  agony  in  Gethsemane 
under  the  burden  of  the  sin  and  guilt  of  mankind  (Luke  22:  44; 
comp.  Heb.  5:  7).  The  eternal  Son  of  God  in  tears!  How  near  He 
is  brought  to  us !  He  proves  His  full  humanity  before  He  manifests 
His  divinity  in  raising  the  departed  friend.  So  He  slept  just  before 
He  stilled  the  storm  (Matt.  8:  24).  How  much  more  natural,  lovely 
and  attractive  is  a  sympathizing  Snviour  than  a  cold  and  heartless 
Stoic !  He  has  sanctified  tears,  provided  we  sorrow  not  immoderately 
like  those  who  have  no  hope  (1  Thess.  1 :  13),  and  remember  that  He 
is  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life. — P.  S.] 

Vers.  36,  37.  Again  there  is  a  division  amongst  the  Jews.  Many 
recognize  the  naturalness  of  His  tears  as  a  proof  of  His  love  for  the 
departed.  But  some  (in  no  spirit  of  simple  wonder  and  perplexity, 
but  in  unfriendliness)  ask  why  He  had  not  prevented  the  calamity 
over  which  He  is  mourning.  They  may  mean:  As  He  gave  sight  to 
the  blind  man,  could  He  not,  if  He  had  really  wished,  have  stayed 
the  power  of  the  fatal  disease?  But  it  is  also  possible  that  they 
merely  assume  the  former  miracle  for  the  purpose  of  invalidating  it: 
If  He  really  did  give  sight,  why  could  He  not  heal  the  sickness  ?  To 
heal  diseases  was  to  them  a  less  wonderful  act  than  to  give  sight  to 
one  born  blind.     We  are  compelled  to  assume  an  unfriendly  spirit  of 


11:38-40.]  JOHN  XL  257 

38  that  this  man  also  should  not  die?  Jesus  therefore 
again  ^groaning  in  himself  cometh  to  the  tomb. 
Now  it  was   a   cave,  and   a   stone   lay   ''against   it. 

39  Jesus  saith,  Take  ye  away  the  stone.  Martha,  the 
sister  of  him  that  was  dead,  saith  unto  him.  Lord,  by 
this  time  he  stinketh :  for  he  hath   been   dead  four 

40  days.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Said  I  not  unto  thee, 
that,  if  thou  believedst,  thou  shouldest  see  the  glory 

^  Or,  being  moved  icUh  indignation  in  himself,  2  Or,  upon. 

the  second  question,  partly  because  of  John's  use  of  the  term  'the 
Jews,'  partly  from  the  analogy  of  many  other  passages  in  which  He 
records  the  opposing  comments  of  different  sections  of  the  party:  the 
sequel  also  (vers.  45,  46)  seems  naturally  to  suggest  such  a  divi- 
sion. The  recurrence  (in  ver.  38)  of  the  word  discussed  above  (ver. 
33)  is  thus  very  easily  explained. 

Ver.  38.  Jesus  therefore  again  moved  -with  indignation 
in  himself  cometh  to  the  tomb.  Now  it  -was  a  cave,  and  a 
stone  lay  against  it.  The  indignation  was  again  excited  either 
by  the  malicious  comment  just  made  by  some  of  the  Jews,  or  by  the 
renewed  recollection  of  the  power  of  evil  in  the  world.  Like  Jewish 
tombs  in  general,  this  was  a  natural  cave  or,  more  probably,  a  vault 
artificially  excavated  in  the  limestone  rock.  The  entrance  was  closed 
by  a  stone,  which  lay  against  it  (or  possibly  uj)on  it).  This  verse 
again  furnishes  an  indication  that  the  family  was  not  poor. 

Ver.  39.  Jesus  saith,  Take  ye  away  the  stone.  The  sister 
of  him  that  w^as  dead,  Martha,  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  by 
this  time  he  stinketh :  for  he  hath  been  four  days  here. 
No  expectation  of  some  great  blessing  which  God  will  give  in  answer 
to  the  prayer  of  Jesus  (ver.  22)  is  now  in  Martha's  mind.  She  cannot 
understand  the  removal  of  the  stone.  To  her,  as  the  (elder)  sister, 
the  right  of  expostulation  belonged;  and  it  is  in  the  simplest  and 
most  direct  terms  that  she  urges  that  the  dead  may  not  be  exposed  to 
the  living.  Nothing  could  more  vividly  illustrate  the  power  which  at 
this  moment  death  wielded  alike  over  the  body  of  the  departed  and 
his  sister's  spirit.  It  is  probably  to  bring  out  this  power  in  the  most 
forcible  manner  possible  that  not  only  is  Martha  described  as  '  the 
sister  of  him  that  was  dead,  but  that  the  description  precedes  her 
name.  How  differently  does  the  Evangelist  himself  feel !  It  is  in- 
structive to  observe  that  in  the  words  'him  that  was  dead'  he  changes 
the  term  for  death,  using  not  that  of  ver.  26,  but  another  which  ex- 
presses simply  coming  to  the  end  of  life. 

Ver.  40.     Martha  would  have  prevented  the  removal  of  the  stone  ; 

but  this  wish  was  but  a  symbol  of  a  real  hindrance  in  the  Saviour's 

way — her  decline  in  faith.     She  has  for  the  time  come  completely 

under  the  intluence  of  'the  things  seen.'     The  reality  of  her  loss  is 

17 


258  JOHN  XI.  [11:  41-44. 

41  of  God  ?  So  they  took  away  the  stone.  And  Jesus 
lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  said,  Father,  I  thank  thee  that 

42  thou  heardest  me.  And  I  knew  that  thou  hearest 
me  always :  but  because  of  the  multitude  Avhich  stand- 
eth  around  I  said  it,  that  they  may  believe  that  thou 

43  didst  send  me.  And  when  he  had  thus  spoken,  he 
41  cried  with   a  loud  voice,  Lazarus,  come  forth.     He 

that  Avas  dead  came  forth,  bound  hand  and  foot  with 
^  grave-clothes  :  and  his  face  was  bound  about  with  a 

1  Or,  grave-bands. 

too  much  for  her,  and  she  cannot  join  the  words  of  Jesus  in  vers.  25, 
26,  "svith  His  present  actions.  In  saying  'believe'  He  recalls  those 
words  of  His  to  her  thought ;  and  not  those  words  only,  but  also  His 
first  saying  (ver.  4),  that  the  sickness  was  'not  unto  death,  but  for 
the  glory  of  God.' 

Vers.  41,  42.  The  words  are  not  a  prayer,  but  a  thanksgiving  for 
prayer  answered.  What  He  is  about  to  do  is  given  by  the  Father  in 
answer  to  His  prayer.  But  had  Jesus  said  no  more  than  this,  though 
the  miracle  would  have  ministered  to  'the  glory  of  God'  (ver.  4),  yet 
even  this  purpose  would  have  been  attained  in  an  inferior  degree ; 
the  Father  receives  true  glory  when  Jesus  is  acknowledged,  not  merely 
as  a  Prophet,  whose  prayer  is  heard,  but  as  the  Son  of  God.  To  His 
thanksgiving  Jesus  adds  words  which  implicitly  declare  the  whole 
relation  cf  the  Father  to  the  Son.  The  hearing  of  prayer,  for  which 
He  has  given  thanks,  is  no  isolated  act,  but  is  one  manifestation  of 
an  unceasing  communion.  Whilst  uttering  the  words  of  prayer  or  of 
thanksgiving.  He  knew  that  the  Father  heard  Him  always;  the  words 
were  spoken  for  the  sake  of  the  multitude,  that  they  might  believe 
the  truth  of  His  mission.  Had  they  witnessed  the  miracle  unaccom- 
panied by  this  appeal  to  His  Father,  they  might  well  have  glorified 
God,  who  had  given  such  power  unto  men,  and  acknowledged  that  as 
a  wonder-working  Prophet,  Jesus  was  sent  and  empowered  by  God. 
But  if  the  power  of  God  is  manifested  now,  when  this  solemn  claim  is 
made  of  constant  communion  with  God,  with  God  as  'Father,'  the 
seal  of  the  Father  is  set  upon  Him  as  the  Son  and  the  Sent  of  God. 
The  word  'multitude'  cannot  signify  number  only  and  refer  to  'the 
Jews'  before  spoken  of.  John  always  employs  this  word  in  another 
sense,  and  indeed  in  marked  distinction  from  the  ruling  class,  'the 
Jews.'  It  is  clear  then  that  many  were  now  present — persons  who 
had  accompanied  Jesus  from  Pertea,  and  friends  and  neighbors  of  the 
family  of  Bethany. 

Vers.  43,  44.  The  words  'bound  hand  and  foot'  perhaps  convey  a 
wrong  impression :  as  the  more  literal  meaning  is  '  his  hands  and  his 
feet  bound  with  grave-bands,'  it  is  very  possible  that  the  limbs  were 


11 :  45,  46.]  JOHN  XI.  259 

napkin.     Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Loose  him,  and  let 
him  go. 

ChaptePw  11  :  45-57. 

The  Effect  of  the  Raising  of  Lazarus. 

^^  Many  therefore  of  the  Jews,  which  came  to  Mary 
and    beheld    Hhat   which  he   did,   believed   on   him. 

46  But  some  of  them  went  away  to  the  Phai'isees,  and 
told  them  the  things  w^hich  Jesus  had  done. 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  the  things  which  he  did. 

separately  bound,  so  that,  life  having  returned,  free  movement  was 
permitted  to  them.  The  miracle  wrought,  the  Evangelist  adds  nothing 
concerning  Lazarus  or  his  sisters.  It  is  Jesus  Himself  who  is  the 
centre  of  the  scene,  who  has  shown  Himself  the  Resurrection  and  the 
Life.  Even  the  impression  which  this  most  wonderful  of  miracles 
produces  is  recorded  only  in  its  relation  to  Jesus  and  to  belief  in 
Him. 

Tlie  Effect  of  the  Raising  of  Lazarus^  vers.  45-57. 

Contents. — The  most  striking  of  all  the  miracles  of  Jesus  has  been  performed,  and 
His  manifestation  of  Himself  to  the  world  has  ended.  The  effect  is  proportionate. 
On  the  one  hand,  faith  is  awakened  in  the  hearts  of  '  many'  of  His  most  determined 
enemies  '  the  Jews.'  On  the  other  hand,  final  measures  are  taken  to  seize  and  kill 
Him.  Jesus  retires  to  a  city  near  the  wilderness  along  with  His  disciples.  It  is  the 
pause  before  the  last  journey  to  Jerusalem,  to  which  He  is  to  go  as  tlie  Paschal  Lamb 
selected  for  the  true  Paschal  sacrifice  and  feast.  The  subordinate  parts  are— (1)  vers. 
45,  46 ;  (2)  vers.  47-53  ;   (3)  vers.  54-57. 

Ver.  45.  The  statement  is  very  remarkable,  but  the  language  of  the 
original  is  so  clear  as  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  meaning.  The  great 
manifestations  of  our  Lord  to  the  people,  whether  in  word  or  in  mira- 
cle, were  usually,  as  we  have  several  times  seen,  followed  by  a  marked 
division  of  opinion  and  feeling  among  His  hearers.  There  is  such  a 
division  in  the  present  instance,  as  the  next  verse  shows ;  but  the 
effect  of  the  miracle  is  great  beyond  precedent,  for  all  those  of  'the 
Jews'  who  had  come  to  the  house  of  Mary  (ver.  19),  and  who  with  her 
witnessed  the  actions  of  .Jesus,  became  believers  in  Him. 

Ver.  46.  It  is  impossible,  we  think,  that  what  is  here  related  can 
have  been  done  with  friendly  motives,  or  from  a  mere  sense  of  duty 
to  men  whose  office  made  them  spiritual  guides  of  the  people.  The 
analogy  ot  many  passages  in  which  John  similarly  records  diverging 
opinions  makes  it  plain  that  the  giving  of  this  information  to  the 
Pharisees  was  an  act  of  hostility  to  Jesus.  If  so,  the  word  '  them  ' 
at  the  beginning  of  the  verse  must  refer  to  '  the  Jews  '  in  general,  not 


260  JOHN  XL  [11:  47-50. 

47  The  chief  priests  therefore  and  the  Pharisees 
gathered  a  council,  and  said,  What  do  we  ?     for  this 

48  man  doeth  many  signs.  If  we  let  him  thus  alone, 
all  men  will  believe  on  him :  and  the  Romans  will 
come  and  take  away  both  our  place  and  our  nation. 

49  But   a   certain  one  of  them,   Caiaphas,   being   high 

50  priest   that  year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know  nothing 

to  those  who  are  described  in  the  preceding  verse.  At  this  period  of 
our  Lord's  history  the  Pharisees  have  as  a  body  declared  against  Him; 
to  this  large  and  powerful  sect,  therefore,  the  news  of  the  event  is 
brought. 

Ver.  47.  Here,  probably  for  the  first  time  in  this  Gospel,  we  read 
of  the  meeting  of  the  Sanhedrin,— not  a  formal  meeting,  but  one 
hastily  summoned  in  the  sudden  emergency  that  had  arisen.  (See  the 
note  on  chap.  7:  32).  The  question  '  What  do  we?'  is  not  so  much 
deliberative  (  What  are  we  to  do  ?)  as  reproachful  of  themselves.  What 
are  we  doing  ?  This  man  (a  designation  of  dislike  or  contempt)  is 
working  many  miracles  and  we  do  nothing — take  no  steps  to  prevent 
the  evil  that  must  follow  !  The  Evangelist  is  careful  to  preserve  their 
testimony  against  themselves  ;  in  the  moment  of  their  rage  they  ac- 
knowledge the  '  many  signs  '  of  Jesus,  and  confess  themselves  with- 
out excuse. 

Ver.  48.  The  fear  was  natural.  It  is  true  that  they  were  already  sub- 
ject to  the  Roman  power.  But,  with  their  usual  policy  towards  trib- 
utary states,  the  Romans  had  left  them  their  worship,  temple,  and 
religious  administration,  untouched.  If  Jesus  (whom  they  will  not 
recognise  in  His  religious  claims)  shall  be  owned  as  Messiah,  and  pop- 
ular tumult  shall  ensue,  all  these  privileges  will  be  taken  away  from 
them.  Their  fear  therefore  is  real ;  their  guilt  lay  not  in  a  hypocriti- 
cal pretence  of  alarm,  but  in  their  wilful  blindness  to  the  truth.  There 
can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  their  words  are  quoted  by  the  Evange- 
list as  an  unconscious  prophecy  (comp.  chap.  7  :  35  ;  12  :  19  ;  19 :  19, 
and  below,  ver.  50),  or  rather  as  a  prophecy  to  be  fulfilled  in  that 
irony  of  events  which  shall  bring  on  them  in  their  unbelief  the  very 
calamities  they  feared,  while  fiiith  would  have  secured  for  them  the 
contrasted  blessings.  Because  the  Jewish  people  did  not  believe  in 
Jesus,  but  rejected  Him,  the  Romans  did  take  away  both  their  '  place 
and  nation :'  had  they  believed  they  would  have  been  established  for 
ever  in  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  the  Messiah. 

Vers.  49,  50.  But  a  certain  one  of  them,  named  Caiaphas, 
being  high  priest  of  that  year,  said  unto  them,  Ye  know- 
nothing  at  all,  nor  consider  that  it  is  profitable  for  you  that 
one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and  the  -whole  nation 
perish  not  Caiaphas  was  a  Sadducee,  a  powerful  and  crafty  man. 
He  was  high  priest  for  about  eighteen  years  (a.  d.  18-36),  but  is  here 


11:  51-52].  JOHN  XI.  261 

at  all,  nor  do   ye  take  account  that   it  is  expedient 
for  you  that  one  man   should  die  for  the  people,  and 

51  that  the  whole  nation  perish  not.  Now  this  he  said 
not  of  himself:  but  being  high  priest  that  year,  he 
prophesied  that   Jesus    should   die   for   the   nation ; 

52  and  not  for  the  nation  only,  but  that  he  might  also 
gather   together   into   one   the  children  of  God  that 

spoken  of  (as  in  chap.  18  :  13)  as  being  'high  priest  of  that  year.' 
This  remarkable  expression  has  no  reference  to  the  high  priest's  pre- 
carious tenure  of  office  in  those  times  (as  many  as  25  high  priests  are 
enumerated  in  the  century  preceding  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem) ; 
nor  is  there  the  smallest  pretence  for  attributing  to  the  Evangelist  a 
historical  mistake  (such  as  a  belief  that  the  office  was  annual!). 
The  simple  meaning  is  that  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  in  that  memora- 
ble year,  in  which  the  true  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  people  was 
offered,  by  that  death  of  which  the  high  priest  unconsciously  proph- 
esied, and  in  causing  which  moreover  he  was  in  great  measure  the 
instrument.  The  first  words  spoken  by  Caiaphas  are  intheir  brusque 
haughtiness  characteristic  of  the  sect  to  which  he  belonged.  His 
whole  address  to  the  Pharisees  is  marked  by  heartless  selfishness, 
'  If  we  let  him  alone  we  shall  be  brought  to  ruin,'  the  Pharisees  had 
said  :  '  Save  yourself  and  let  Him  perish,'  is  the  uncompromising 
answer  of  this  high  priest.  He  seems  to  use  two  very  different 
words  in  the  same  sense  :  *  people^  was  the  name  of  Israel  in  its  the- 
ocratic aspect,  '  nation'  (the  word  the  Pharisees  had  used)  was  a  term 
common  to  Israel,  with  all  other  peoples  of  the  world.  '  People '  is  a 
name  which  the  Sanhedrists  would  use  in  reference  to  their  own  rule; 
*  nation  '  is  that  which  the  Romans  would  attack  and  destroy.  Un- 
scrupulous and  utterly  unjust  as  this  counsel  was,  it  was  politic  and 
crafty.  It  will  commend  them  to  the  Romans  if  they  can  show  them- 
selves willing  to  destroy  any  one  of  whom  it  may  be  even  pretended 
that  he  seeks  to  disturb  their  rule. 

Vers.  51,  52.  But  this  spake  he  not  of  himself:  but  being 
high  priest  of  that  year,  he  prophesied,  etc.  The  words  are 
a  prophecy :  heartless  and  unscrupulous  in  meaning  and  intention, 
they  are  so  controlled  as  to  express  profound  and  blessed  truth.  In 
the  earlier  days  of  the  nation  a  prophetic  spirit  was  ever  believed  to 
rest  upon  the  high  priest  (comp.  Ex.  28:  30;  Num.  27:  21  ;  Hosea 
3  :  4).  When  the  oflBce  became  degraded,  and  the  high  priest  the 
servant  of  ambition  and  covetousness,  prophetic  guidance  was  no  long- 
er sought  from  him;  but,  as  in  the  Old  Testament  we  read  of  false 
prophets  who  in  spite  of  themselves  were  compelled  to  be  the  medium 
of  proclaiming  God's  will,  so  is  it  here.  AVe  see  now  the  significance 
of  the  words  '  people '  and  •  nation.'  He  prophesied  that  Jesus 
should  die  for  the  nation, — i.  e.,  for  the  Jews,  henceforth  but  one  of 


262  ^  JOHN  XI.  [11:53-55. 

63  are  scattered  abroad.  So  from  that  day  forth  they 
took  counsel  that  they  might  put  him  to  death. 

54  Jesus  therefore  walked  no  more  openly  among 
the  Jews,  but  departed  thence  into  the  country  near 
to  the  wilderness,  into  a   city  called  Ephraim ;    and 

65  there  he  tarried  with  the  disciples.  Now  the  pass- 
over  of  the  Jews  was  at  hand :  and  many  went  up 
to   Jerusalem  out   of   the  country  before   the  pass- 

the  nations  of  the  world,  ranked  with  the  Gentiles  whom  they  scorned. 
The  object  of  this  death  should  also  be,  'that  He  might  gather  into 
one  the  children  of  God  that  are  scattered  abroad.'  The  latter  proph- 
ecy is  found  by  the  Evangelist  in  the  word  *  people  '  of  ver.  50,  '  that 
one  man  should  die  for  the  people.'  No  longer  does  this  name  belong 
to  Jews  alone.  The  sacrifice  is  oflfered  in  behalf  of  all  children  of 
God,  all  to  whom  the  Father  offers  sonship,  gathered  henceforth  into 
one  under  the  new  name  of  '  the  people'  of  God.  Compare  the  strik- 
ing parallels  in  chap.  7:  35;  10:   16;   17:  20.      . 

Ver.  53.  From  that  day  forth,  therefore,  they  took  coun- 
sel that  they  might  put  him  to  death.  Not  that  they  might 
pass  sentence  of  death  upon  him  ;  that  is  done :  but  that  they  might 
execute  the  sentence.  Their  previous  eff'orts  of  rage  against  Jesus  had 
been  connected  with  moments  of  special  excitement ;  henceforth  they 
are  deliberate,  determined,  constant.  The  cup  of  iniquity  of  '  the 
Jews '  is  full. 

Ver.  54.  The  time  of  '  free  speech  '  (see  note  on  chap.  7  :  4)  was 
at  an  end  :  from  this  time  Jesus  avoided  communication  with  *  the 
Jews,'  no  longer  vouchsafing  to  them  the  word  which  they  heard  only 
to  reject.  The  place  to  which  He  withdrew  aiforded  a  deeper  solitude 
than  that  sought  by  Him  a  little  while  before  (chap.  10:  40).  The 
crisis  in  His  life  is  graver ;  the  retirement  which  he  seeks  is  more 
profound.  There  is  no  mention  now  (as  in  10:  41)  of  many  who  re- 
sorted unto  Him :  the  town  to  which  He  retired  is  described  as  '  near 
to  the  wilderness.'  Ephraim,  possibly  the  same  as  Ophrah  (1  Sam. 
13:  17),  is  commonly  identified  with  el-Taiyibeh,  a  village  16  miles 
from  Jerusalem  and  4  or  5  east  of  Bethel,  situated  on  a  hill  which 
commands  the  valley  of  the  Jordan.  The  wilderness  will  be  'the 
wild  uncultivated  hill  country  noi*th-east  of  Jerusalem,  lying  between 
the  central  towns  and  the  Jordan  valley '  (See  Smith's  Diet,  of  Bible, 
and  Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  214,  419). 

Ver  55.  And  the  pasover  of  the  Je-ws  -was  nigh  at  hand. 
See  the  notes  on  chap.  2 :  13  ;  6 :  4.  No  one  who  has  followed  the 
narrative  of  this  Gospel  with  care  up  to  the  present  point  can  doubt 
that  the  expression  is  used  with  deep,  indeed  with  terrible  significance. 
—And  they  -went  up  to  Jerusalem  out  of  the  country  before 
the  passover,  to  purify  themselves.     It  does  not  appear  that 


11:56,57—12:1].         JOHN  XI— XII.  263 

56  over,  to  purify  themselves.  They  sought  therefore 
for  Jesus,  and  spake  oue  with  another,  as  they  stood 
in  the  temple,  What  think  ye?     That   he   will  not 

57  come  to  the  feast?  Kow  the  chief  priests,  and  the 
Pharisees  had  given  commandment,  that,  if  any  man 
knew  where  he  was,  he  should  shew  it,  that  they 
might  take  him. 

Chapter  12:  1-36. 

Homage  to  Jesus,  who  in  Death  triumphs  over  Death, 

1      Jesus  therefore  six  days  before  the  passover  came 

there  was  any  special  injunction  with  regard  to  purification  before  the 
Passover  ;  but  the  feast  fell  under  the  general  law  of  purification, 
and  defiled  persons  did  not  feel  themselves  qualified  to  partake  of  the 
Passover  (comp.  18  :  28).  These  strangers  from  the  country,  there- 
fore, assembled  in  Jerusalem  several  days  before  the  festival,  that  in 
the  holy  city  they  might  seek  the  preparation  that  was  requisite. 

Ver.  56.  The  language  is  that  of  eai-nest  and  interested  inquiry. 
Those  who  are  talking  together  are  friendly  to  Jesus,  and  hopeful  and 
expectant  that  He  will  appear  at  the  festival.  The  groups  assemble 
in  the  temple-courts,  where  many  of  them  may  have  come  to  bring 
offerings  for  purification  (ver,  55),  and  where  Jesus  had  been  wont  to 
teach.  The  word  '  therefore  '  at  the  beginning  of  this  verse  seems  to 
point  to  the  privacy  into  which  Jesus  had  retired  (ver.  54).  These 
pilgrims  came  to  Jerusalem,  hoping  to  meet  with  Jesus,  but  they  saw 
Him  not:  they  sought  Him  therefore,  etc.  (comp.  chap.  7:  11). 

Ver.  57.  No^w  the  chief  priests  and  the  Pharisees  had 
given  commandments,  [hTo?.da]*  that  if  any  man  knew 
•where  he  w^ere,  he  should  shew  it  that  they  might  seize 
him.  As  the  last  verse  has  described  the  eager  interest  of  the  friends 
of  Jesus,  this  verse  presents  a  picture  of  His  enemies.  In  pursuance 
of  the  resolve  related  above  (ver.  53)  commandments  had  been  issued 
— the  plural  seems  to  point  to  ord -rs  sent  to  all  parts  of  the  land 
— that  all  the  faithful  should  aid  the  rulers  in  apprehending  Jesus. 
These  latter  verses  show  us  the  friends  and  the  foes  of  Jesus  alike  oc- 
cupying the  field  in  preparation  for  the  end. 

Homage  to  Jesus,  who  in  Death  triumphs  over  Death,  vers.  1-36. 

Contents. — Jesus  has  been  doomed  to  death  (11 :  53,  57),  and  the  hour  is  at  hand 
when  He  shall  be  seized,  and  the  sentence  executed.  But  the  malice  of  man  cannot 
interfere  with  the  purposes  of  God.  In  the  midst  of  dangers,  under  sentence  of  death, 
the  Redeemer  pursues  His  path  of  glorj'.    Three  pictures  illustrating  this  are  pre- 

[*  A  difference  of  reading,  evroAoa  and  e»'ToAi7»'. — P.  S.] 


264  JOHN  XII.  [12:2. 

to  Bethany,  where  Lazarus  was,  whom  Jesus  raised 
2  from  the  dead.     So  they  made  him  a  supper  there : 

sented  in  the  section  of  the  twelfth  chapter  now  before  us.  The  subordinate  parts  of 
this  section  are — (!)  vers.  1-11,  the  anointing  in  Bethany;  (2)  vers.  12-19,  the  trium- 
phal entry  into  Jerusalem ;  (3)  vers.  20-36,  the  homage  of  the  Greeks  to  Jesus. 

Ver.  1.  The  word  therefore  marks  a  close  connection  with  the 
general  statement  of  chap.  11:  55.  As  to  the  particular  date  here 
spoken  of,  there  has  been  much  difference  of  opinion.  The  point 
from  which  the  Evangelist  reckons  is  the  14th  day  of  Nisan  or  Abib, 
the  first  month  in  the  Jewish  sacred  year.  '  In  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  first  month  at  even  is  the  Lord's  Passover'  (Lev.  23:  5).  On 
this  fourteenth  day,  'between  the  evenings'  (Ex.  12:  6),  that  is 
(probably)  between  sunset  and  the  time  when  darkness  came  on,  the 
Paschal  lamb  was  to  be  slain.  With  the  evening  of  the  fourteenth 
day  (using  day  in  its  ordinary  sense)  began,  according  to  Jewish 
reckoning,  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  month,  which,  lasting  until  the 
following  sunset,  was  the  first  of  the  seven  days  of  unleavened  bread. 
The  Paschal  meal,  therefore,  was  eaten  at  the  close  of  the  fourteenth 
natural  day,  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  day  according  to 
the  computation  of  the  Jews.  Starting  then  from  the  14th  of  Nisan, 
the  'six  days'  will  bring  us  to  the  8th;  and  if,  as  is  generally  be- 
lieved, the  15th  of  Nisan  fell  on  Friday  in  this  year,  the  8th  will  coin- 
cide with  the  same  day  in  the  preceding  week.  The  cnly  doubt 
respecting  the  correctness  of  this  view  arises  from  a  peculiarity  some- 
times found  in  Jewish  notes  of  time — both  the  first  day  and  the  last 
in  an  interval  being  included  in  the  reckoning,  so  that  '  six  days  be- 
fore '  might  really  mean  '  the  sixth  day  before,'  that  is  *  five  days  be- 
fore ;'  but  as  it  is  certain  that  the  Jews  themselves  could  speak  of 
'one  day  before  the  Passover'  (using  this  very  form  of  expression) — 
•words  to  which  only  one  meaning  can  possibly  be  given — it  seems 
perfectly  certain  that  the  reckoning  in  this  verse  must  be  taken  in  its 
exact  and  natural  sense,  as  we  have  taken  it  above.  It  was  therefore 
on  the  8th  of  Nisan,  at  some  part  of  the  day  which  we  should  call  the 
Friday  before  the  Passover,  that  .Jesus  arrived  in  Bethany.  This  day, 
as  we  learn  from  Josephus,  was  often  chosen  by  the  bands  of  pilgrims 
for  their  arrival  in  Jerusalem  :  those  referred  to  in  chap.  11 :  55  had 
come  earlier  than  others  to  the  holy  city  for  a  special  reason.  As  the 
Sabbath  commenced  on  the  evening  of  this  day,  we  may  most  natu- 
rally assume  that  Jesus  reached  Bethany  before  sunset.  In  adding 
to  the  name  of  this  place  the  words:  '  where  Lazarus  w-as  whom  Jesus 
raised  from  the  dead,'  the  Evangelist  in  part  intends  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  narrative  that  folloAvs,  but  also  seeks  to  connect  his  nar- 
rative with  the  wonderful  record  of  chap.  11,  and  to  place  the  glory 
of  Jesus  as  the  Prince  and  Giver  of  Life  in  contrast  with  the  designs 
of  His  enemies  to  seize  Him  and  put  Him  to  death  (11 :  53). 

Ver.  2.      There  therefore  they  made   him  a   supper;  and 
Martha  served :  but  Lazarus  'was  one  of  them  that  sat  at 


12:  3.]  JOHN  XII.  265 

and  Martha  served ;  but  Lazarus  was  one  of  them 

3  that  sat  at  meat  with  him.     Mary  therefore  took  a 

pound  of  ointment  of  ^spikenard,  very  precious,  and 

1  See  marginal  note  on  Mark  14 :  3. 

the  table  with  him.  Two  points  only  are  mentioned  by  John, 
that  a  feast  was  given  in  honor  of  Jesus,  and  that  every  member  of 
the  family  so  signally  blessed  was  present.  By  whom,  when  and 
where,  the  feast  was  given,  are  questions  to  which  he  returns  no  an- 
swer. Different  conclusions  may  be  drawn  from  the  words  of  this 
verse;  but  they  seem  most  naturally  to  imply  that  the  entertainment 
was  not  given  in  the  house  or  by  the  family  of  Lazarus.  It  is  true 
that  '  Martha  served ;'  yet  we  may  well  suppose  that,  wherever  the 
feast  took  place,  this  was  an  ofl&ce  she  would  claim ;  and  the  insertion 
of  the  clause  relating  to  Lazarus  is  hardly  to  be  accounted  for  if  Jesus 
were  a  guest  in  his  house.  As  to  the  question  of  time,  ver.  12  seems 
to  show  that  the  evening  of  the  feast  must  have  been  that  following 
the  Sabbath  rather  than  the  evening  with  which  the  Sabbath  com- 
menced. Between  this  verse  therefore  and  ver.  1  we  must  interpose 
the  rest  of  the  Sabbath.  We  are  now  at  liberty  to  turn  to  the  account 
of  the  Synoptists.  Luke  relates  nothing  (in  connection  with  this  pe- 
riod) that  is  similar  to  the  narrative  before  us ;  but  the  other  two 
Evangelists  describe  a  supper  and  an  anointing  which  manifestly  are 
ilentical  with  what  John  records  here.  Some  slight  differences  in 
detail  will  be  called  up  as  the  narrative  proceeds  :  the  only  serious 
question  is  one  relating  to  time.  In  Matt.  26:  2  we  are  brought  to  a 
date  two  days  before  the  Passover,  whereas  the  feast  in  question  is 
related  in  later  verses  (6-13).  But  there  is  nothing  whatever  in 
Matthew's  account  to  fix  the  time  of  the  feast:  and  both  the  structure 
of  his  Gospel  and  the  apparent  links  of  connection  in  this  particular 
narrative  are  consistent  with  the  view  that  at  ver.  6  he  goes  back  to  re- 
late an  earlier  event,  which  furnished  occasion  to  Judas  for  furthering 
the  design  of  the  rulers,  as  recorded  in  the  first  verses  of  the  chapter. 
If  then  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  identity  of  the  events  mentioned  by 
the  Synoptists  and  by  John,  we  learn  that  the  feast  was  given  in  the 
house  of  Simon  the  leper,  a  persoo  of  whom  we  know  nothing  more. 

Ver.  3.  By  'ointment'  we  are  to  understand  rather  a  liquid  per- 
fume than  what  we  commonly  know  as  ointment.  The  precise  kind 
of  ointment  or  perfume  has  been  much  controverted.  The  words, 
"which  literally  mean  ointment  of  nard  ^pistic,'  are  the  same  as  those 
employed  by  Mark  (14:  3);  in  each  place  our  English  version  has 
'spikenard,'  a  word  suggested  by  the  rendering  of  the  Vulgate  in 
Mark  (nardus  spicatus),  and  used  by  our  translators  in  three  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  (Cant.  1:  12;  4:  13,  14).  In  the  passages  last 
named  the  word  that  stands  in  the  Hebrew  text  is  nerd,  evidently 
identical  with  the  nardos  used  here  by  John :  the  word  is  said  to  be 
really  of  Persian  origin,  denoting  a  perfume  brought  from  India  by 


266  JOHN  XII.  [12:  3. 

anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus^  and  wiped  his  feet  with 
her  hair :  and  the  house  was  filled  with  the  odour  of 

Persian  traders.  It  will  be  seen  that  our  translation  has  practically 
passed  over  the  epithet  'pistic,'  as  to  the  meaning  of  which  there  ex- 
ists the  greatest  uncertainty.  By  some  it  is  explained  as  potable  (the 
fine  nard-oil  being  sometimes  drunk) ;  others  refer  the  word  to  a  root 
meaning  to  press  ov  pound  (the  oil  being  obtained  by  pressure) ;  whilst 
others  maintain  that  the  word  is  not  descriptive  of  any  species  of 
nard,  but  denotes  its  genuijieness.  The  most  probable  opinion  is  that 
pistic  is  a  geographical  term  which  was  at  the  time  familiarly  asso- 
ciated with  the  name  of  the  perfume  as  an  article  of  commerce,  though 
now  the  exact  significance  is  lost.  From  the  parallel  narratives 
(Matt.  26 :  7;  Mark  14:  3)  we  learn  that,  as  a  fluid,  it  was  kept  in  a 
flask  (for  this  is  the  truer  rendering  of  the  Greek  word  translated 
alabaster  box)  hermetically  sealed ;  and  the  contents  would  be  ex- 
tracted by  breaking  otf  the  neck.  As  the  ointment  was  a  fluid,  and 
the  neck  of  the  flask  was  broken  ofl:',  we  seem  entitled  to  infer  that 
the  whole  was  used.  The  quantity  which  Mary  had  bought  was  very 
large,  for  the  '  pound '  here  spoken  of  was  equivalent  to  about  twelve 
ounces  avoirdupois.  Its  preciousness  is  best  illustrated  by  a  later 
verse  (ver.  5),  where  we  find  300  denarii  (in  Mark  14:  5,  more  than 
300  denarii)  mentioned  as  its  probable  value.  If  we  take  the  denarius 
at  8 J  d.  [17  cents],  the  value  ordinarily  assigned,  this  sum  amounts 
to  £10,  12s.,  6d.  [$51].  The  true  principle  of  calculation,  however, 
is  that  the  sum  be  estimated  according  to  the  power  of  purchase 
which  it  represents ;  and  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  300  denarii 
would  ordinarily  purchase  a  larger  quantity  of  wheat  (for  example) 
than  could  now  be  obtained  for  £20  [$100]  of  our  money. — And 
anointed  the  feet  of  Jesus,  etc.  With  this  precious  perfume, 
then,  Mary  anointed  the  feet  of  her  Lord.  The  other  Evangelists 
speak  of  'the  head,'  not  'the  feet,'  and  of  the  ointment  as  poured 
down  over  the  head.  There  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  accounts. 
Both  feet  and  head  were  anointed ;  John  speaks  of  the  former  because 
the  words  which  he  is  about  to  add  refer  to  the  feet  alone;  and  though 
the  other  narratives  mention  no  more  than  the  anointing  of  the  head, 
yet  the  words  of  Jesus  related  by  both  Evangelists  speak  of  the  oint- 
ment as  poured  upon  His  'body,'  and  as  designed  to  prepare  Him  for 
His  burial.  Perhaps  in  a  writer  like  John,  who  seizes  so  powerfully 
the  symbolism  (the  real  symbolism,  not  a  possible  subjective  applica- 
tion) of  the  various  events  in  his  Master's  life,  we  ought  also  to  con- 
nect this  anointing  of  the  feet  of  Jesus  [twice  mentioned,  here  and  11 : 
2)  with  His  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  to  be  related  in  the  chapter 
which  follows.  Over  against  cleansing  of  their  feet  soiled  by  the 
day's  travel  is  set  the  honor  due  to  the  very  feet  of  Him  to  whom 
contact  with  earthly  life  brought  not  even  a  transient  stain.  Be  this 
as  it  may,  Mary's  action  as  here  described,  her  use  of  the  most  pre- 
cious ointment,  whose  odor  filled  the  whole  house  (a  fact  which  is  far 


12 :  4-6.]  JOHN  XII.  267 

4  the  ointment.     But  Judas  Iscariot,  one  of  his  disci- 

5  pies,  which  should  betray  him,  saith.  Why  was  not 
this  ointment  sold  for  three  hundred  ^  pence,  and  given 

6  to  the  poor.     Xow  this  he  said,  not  because  he  cared 
for  the  poor ;  but  because  he  was  a  thief,  and  having 

1  See  marginal  note  on  Matt.  18 :  28. 

more  than  a  mere  historical  reminiscence),  and  the  devotion  of  that 
which  is  a  woman's  chief  ornament  to  the  purpose  of  wiping  the  feet 
which  she  had  anointed,  picture  to  us  most  impressively  her  gratitude 
and  humble  reverence. 

Ver.  4.  But  Judas  Iscariot,  one  of  his  disciples,  he  that 
■was  about  to  betray  him,  saith.  After  the  picture  of  the  highest 
loving  homage  to  Him  Avhom  the  .Jewish  rulers  had  adjudged  to  death, 
the  Evangelist  gives  the  contrasted  view  of  an  apostle,  who,  apostle  as 
he  was,  would  shortly  be  seeking  to  betray  his  Lord,  and  who  showed 
the  present  workings  of  his  heart  by  grudging  the  lavish  expression 
of  Mary's  faith  and  love. 

Ver.  5.  "Why  was  not  this  ointment  sold  for  three  hundred 
pence  [denarii],  and  given  to  the  poor?  Care  for  the  poor  is 
the  mask  which  the  murmuring  protest  of  .Judas  wears.  Thus  sin, 
that  it  may  the  better  extinguish  the  virtue  by  which  at  the  moment 
itis  oifended,  is  wont  to  pay  reverence  to  some  other  virtue, — some 
virtue  which  may  be  thought  of  without  trouble,  because  it  is  not 
really  present  and  in  question.  But  the  Evangelist  in  recording  the 
words  strips  off  the  mask. 

Ver.  6.  But  this  he  said,  not  because  he  cared  for  the 
poor;  but  because  he  was  a  thief,  and,  having  the  bag, 
bare  away  what  was  put  therein.  Matthew  mentions  the  mur- 
muring on  the  part  of  some  of  the  disciples :  evidently,  therefore,  the 
plausible  remonstrance  of  Judas  led  more  honest  and  guileless  minds 
than  his  to  share  in  the  wonder  which  his  words  expressed.  John 
speaks  of  Judas  only,  as  he  alone  reveals  the  real  motive  of  the  com- 
plaint. The  somewhat  remarkable  word  rendered  '  bag '  is  found 
twice  only  in  the  New  Testament,  here  and  in  13  :  29  ;  in  the  Septua- 
gint  it  occurs  only  in  2  Chron.  24 :  8,  10,  11.  It  was  not  a  bag,  but 
rather  a  small  box  or  chest.  As  in  the  only  passages  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament in  which  the  word  occurs  it  denotes  a  receptacle  for  offerings 
made  to  the  temple,  it  is  perhaps  more  than  a  coincidence  that  it  is 
here  chosen  by  John  when  he  would  speak  of  the  small  store  of 
money  possessed  by  Jesus  (the  True  temple)  and  His  disciples, — 
money  derived  from  the  voluntary  offerings  of  the  few  who  had  re- 
cognized His  glory  and  consecrated  their  substance  to  the  supply  of 
His  wants.  Another  word  in  this  verse  requires  remark,  that  which 
in  the  Authorized  Version  appears  as  '  bare,'  but  which  we  have  ren- 
dered '  bare  away.'  The  former  is  the  more  common  meaning  of  the 
word  both  in  classical  Greek  and  in  the  New  Testament :   but  the  lat- 


268  JOHN  XII.  [12:  7. 

7  the  ^bag  ^took  away  what  was  put  therein.     Jesus 
therefore  said,  ^Suffer  her  to  keep  it  against  the  da} 

1  Or,  box.  2  Or,  carried  what  was  put  therein. 

3  Or,  Let  her  alone :  it  was  that  she  might  keep  it. 

ter  (which  often  occurs  in  later  Greek)  is  certainly  intended  by  John 
in  a  later  verse  of  the  Gospel  (20  :  15,  '  if  thou  have  borne  him  away'). 
It  seems  impossible  that  the  word  can  have  the  neutral  meaning  here : 
partly  because,  after  the  mention  of  the  dishonesty  of  Judas,  the  state- 
ment that  he  carried  that  which  was  cast  into  the  common  chest 
would  be  a  strange  anti-climax  ;  and  partly  because  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  see  why  John  should  write  such  a  sentence  as  this,  *  and,  hav- 
ing the  bag,  carried  what  ivas  put  therein.' 

Ver.  7.  Jesus  therefore  said,  Let  her  alone,  that  for  the 
day  of  the  preparation  for  my  burial  she  may  keep  it.  The 
meaning  of  the  word  which  in  the  Authorized  Version  is  rendered 
'  burial '  is  made  clear  by  19  :  40  (where  substantially  the  same  word 
is  used) ;  *  they  took  the  body  of  Jesus  and  wrapped  it  in  linen  cloths 
with  the  spices,  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  is  to  prepare  for  burial.' 
The  true  reading  of  the  Greek  text,  that  which  our  rendering  repre- 
sents, undoubtedly  presents  a  difficulty,  as  we,  knowing  that  our  Lord 
is  speaking  of  the  day  then  present,  cannot  understand  how  Jesus  can 
say  '  that  .  .  .  she  may  keep  it.'  The  simplest  solution  of  the  diffi- 
culty, were  it  admissible,  is  afforded  by  the  rendering,  '  Suffer  that 
she  may  have  kept  it ;'  but  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Greek 
words  can  admit  of  this  translation.  Another  suggestion  is  that,  as 
the  quantity  of  nard  was  so  great,  our  Lord  refers  to  the  portion  still 
remaining  in  the  flask.  The  objection  to  this  is  found  in  what  has 
been  said  of  the  mode  of  opening  the  flask  and  in  the  '  pouring  de- 
scribed by  the  other  Evangelists :  it  is  not  easy  to  see  that  any  por- 
tion worth  speaking  of  could  still  remain.  We  must  not  forget  that 
these  words  were  enigmatical,  and  intentionally  so.  Our  Lord  was 
not  distinctly  affirming  that  this  day  was,  so  to  speak,  the  day  on 
which  He  was  prepared  for  entombment :  it  was  His  wont  to  use  lan- 
guage which  but  partially  revealed  the  approaching  event,  which 
seemed  to  unenlightened  hearers  to  contain  only  some  dark  hint  of 
trouble  impending,  but  which  stood  forth  in  luminous  significance 
when  the  implied  prophecy  was  ready  to  be  fulfilled.  Hence  here,  in 
speaking  of  the  (unconscious  or  half-unconscious)  purpose  of  Mary, 
He  uses  words  which  leave  the  time  of  the  conception  and  fulfilment 
of  the  purpose  altogether  doubtful.  His  answer  amounts  to  this : 
Meddle  not  with  the  intention  that  she  has  had  to  keep  this  for  the 
day  on  which  I  must  be  prepared  for  the  tomb.  It  is  possible  that 
the  sentence  is  left  incomplete,  and  that  there  is  a  break  between  the 
two  parts  : — '  Let  her  alone  ;' — '  that  she  may  keep  it  unto  the  day,' 
etc.  Such  an  elliptic  use  af  a  clause  of  purpose  is  not  uncommon  in 
this  Gospel.  If  we  may  assume  that  we  have  an  example  of  this 
usage  here,  the  meaning  will  be,  It  is,  or,  It  was,  or.  She  hath  bought 


12:  8-10.]  JOHN  XII.  269 

8  of  my  burying.  For  the  poor  ye  have  always  with 
you ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always. 

9  The  common  people  therefore  of  the  Jews  learned 
that  he  was  there :  and  they  came,  not  for  Jesus'  sake 
only,  but  that  they  might  see  Lazarus  also,  whom  he 

10  had  raised  from  the  dead.     But  the  chief  priests  took 

this  ointment,  that  she  might  keep  it,  etc.  The  meaning  is  almost  the 
same  as  that  previously  given.  The  word  which  our  Loi'd  uses  in 
this  verse  shows  in  what  light  this  section  is  to  be  viewed.  It  is  not 
so  much  the  living  Saviour  that  we  have  before  us,  as  the  Saviour  on 
■whom  sentence  of  death  has  been  passed.  At  the  feet  of  Him  whom 
*  the  Jews '  are  seeking  to  kill,  and  whom  false  friends  are  betraying, 
faith  pours  her  richest  treasures.  Mary  thought  only  of  showing  her 
reverence  and  love :  Jesus  sees  in  it  a  prophetic  recognition  of  the  im- 
pending event  which  crowned  His  humiliation  and  became  His  exalta- 
tion. The  Evangelist  relates  an  unconscious  prophecy  on  the  part  of 
a  disciple,  as  he  has  related  a  prophecy  by  an  enemy  who  '  spake  not 
of  himself  (11:  51). 

Ver.  8.  For  the  poor  always  ye  have  with  you,  but  me  ye 
have  not  always.  The  duty  of  giving  to  the  poor  is  fully  recog- 
nized :  it  must  never  be  forgotten.  But  there  are  moments  Avhen 
what  may  seem  lavish  waste  upon  objects  visible  only  to  the  eye  of 
faith  are  to  be  commended  for  the  faith  that  is  present  in  them.  How 
often  has  the  history  of  the  world  borne  testimony  to  the  truth  thus 
declared  by  Jesus  !  The  very  charity  that  cares  for  the  poor  whom 
we  see  has  been  kept  alive  by  faith  in,  and  devotion  to,  the  crucified 
Redeemer  whom  we  cannot  see. 

Ver.  9.  Faith  and  unbelief  have  revealed  themselves  in  the  case  of 
the  friends  and  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  and  especially  in  the  deed  of 
Mary  and  the  words  of  Judas.  But  the  sifting  process  which  accom- 
panies every  manifestation  of  Jesus  extends  to  a  wider  circle.  Once 
more  (comp.  chap.  11 :  45,  46),  and  much  more  clearly  than  before, 
the  Evangelist  records  the  division  among  '  the  Jews '  themselves  ;  for 
we  have  no  right  to  take  this  term  in  any  other  than  that  sense  which 
is  so  firmly  established  in  this  Gospel.  That  very  circle  of  Jewish 
influence  and  power  in  which  till  lately  the  spirit  of  narrow  bigotry 
and  fanaticism  had  found  its  expression  in  determined  hostility  to 
Jesus  is  divided  into  two  classes,  'the  common  people  of  the  Jews,' 
and  the  rulers  in  this  ruling  faction,  'the  high  priests.' 

Vers.  10,  11.  When  the  rulers  found  that  even  their  own  adherents 
were  deserting  them  (comp.  11  :  48),  their  rage  knew  no  bounds. 
Lazarus  had  not  incurred  their  displeasure,  but  everything  that  min- 
istered to  the  success  of  the  cause  of  Jesus  must  be  swept  out  of  the 
way.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  conflict  cf  Jesus  with  the  Jews  is 
continually  growing  in  intensity,  and  has  well-nigh  reached  its  cJLi- 
max.     The  eifect  produced  by  the  recent  miracle  has  been  great  be- 


270  JOHN  XII.  [12 :  11-13. 

11  counsel  that  they  might  put  Lazarus  unto  death ;  be- 
cause that  by  reason  of  him  many  of  the  Jews  went 
away,  and  believed  on  Jesus. 

12  On  the  morrow  ^a  great  multitude  that  had  come 
to  the  feast,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus  Avas  coming 

13  to  Jerusalem,  took  the  branches  of  the  palm  trees, 
and  went  forth  to  meet  him,  and  cried  out,  Hosanna : 
Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord, 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  the  common 


yond  all  previous  example.  Yet  we  cannot  but  feel  that  to  the  Evan- 
gelist himself  the  miracle  would  be  most  precious  as  a  'sign;'  and 
that  what  he  intends  us  to  feel  most  deeply  is  the  contrast  between  the 
rulers  bent  on  His  death  and  the  calm  majesty  of  Him  who  is  'the 
Ilesuri-ection  and  the  Life,''  in  whose  presence  are  Lazarus,  the  trophy 
and  emblem  of  His  power  over  life  physical,  and  believers  come  from 
the  very  ranks  of  his  adversaries  to  receive  life  spiritual  through  be- 
lieving in  Him. 

Ver.  12.  The  next  day,  that  is,  the  day  following  the  feast  in 
Bethany  (see  on  ver.  2),  and  therefore  our  Sunday;  the  day  fixed  in 
the  tradition  of  the  Church  for  the  triumphal  entry,  tradition  thus 
confirming  the  exegesis  of  the  text,  and  finding  in  the  latter  support 
for  its  own  correctness.  This  first  day  of  the  Jewish  week  was  the 
10th  Nisan,  the  day  on  which  the  typical  Paschal  lamb  was  selected 
and  set  apart  for  sacrifice  (Ex.  12:  3).— The  common  people 
that  were  come  to  the  feast,  when  they  heard  that  Jesus 
was  coming  to  Jerusalem.  '  The  common  people  '  here  spoken  of 
are  not  'the  .Jews'  (ver.  9),  but  the  multitude  that  had  assembled  at 
Jerusalem  at  the  time  in  order  to  celebrate  the  Passover.  It  would 
seem  that  this  crowd  was  afterwards  joined  by  those  belonging  to  Je- 
rusalem itself  who  had  gone  out  previously  to  Bethany  to  see  Jesus 
(ver.  17).  Of  the  impression  produced  upon  the  latter  we  have  al- 
ready heard.  The  feelings  animating  the  former  appear  both  in  their 
actions  and  in  their  words. 

Ver.  13.  Took  the  branches  of  the  palm  trees.  The  word 
rendered  'branches'  occurs  only  here  in  the  Mew  Testament.  It  is 
the  top' of  a  palm  tree  where  the  fruit  is  produced.  We  are  to  under- 
stand by  the  word,  therefore,  fruit-bearing  branches,  those  from 
which  in  due  season  the  fruit  would  hang.  Hence  it  is  not  palms  of 
victory  that  we  have  before  us,  but  the  palm  branches  of  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles,  the  most  characteristic  feature  of  that  greatest  festival  of 
the  year,  when  the  last  fruits,  '  the  wine  and  the  oil '  as  well  as  '  the 
corn,'  were  ripe,  and  when  the  Messiah  was  expected  to  come  to  His 
temple.  Hence  also  the  articles  before  '  branches '  and  '  palm  trees,' 
not  to  mark  palm  trees  growing  by  the  wayside,  but  the  well-known 
palm  branches  so  closely  connected  with  the  feast.     With  the  idea  of 


12 :  14-16.]  JOHN  XII.  271 

14  even  the  King  of  Israel.     And  Jesus  having  found  a 

15  young  ass,  sat  thereon ;  as  it  is   -written,   Fear   not, 
daughter  of  Zion :  behold,  thy  King  conieth,  sitting 

16  on  an  ass's  colt.     These  things  understood  not  his  dis- 

this  feast  the  Jews  had  been  accustomed  to  associate  the  highest  bles- 
sings of  Messianic  times,  and  at  the  moment,  therefore,  when  they 
hail  Jesus  as  the  long  expected  Messiah  and  King,  the  thoughts  of  it 
naturally  fill  their  minds. — And  "went  forth  to  meet  him,  and 
they  cried  out,  Hosanna:  Blessed  is  he  that  cometh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  and,  The  King  of  Israel.  The  words,  thus 
uttered  with  loud  shouts  of  joy,  correspond  to  the  action  of  which  we 
have  spoken.  Those  in  the  first  clause  of  the  quotation  are  taken 
from  Ps.  118 :  26,  and  are  words  which  were  undoubtedly  used  at  the 
feast  of  Tabernacles.  Whether  we  consider  them  in  connection  with 
their  place  in  the  psalm  or  with  the  typical  meaning  of  the  feast,  they 
were  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  present  moment.  The  psalm  was 
acknowledged  to  be  Messianic,  and  both  psalm  and  feast  celebrate  the 
triumphant  coming  of  Messiah  to  His  house  and  people,  when  the 
gates  of  righteousness  are  opened  and  Israel  goes  in  and  praises  the 
Lord  (Ps.  118:  19).  The  Lord,  too,  appears  in  the  psalm  in  precisely 
the  same  character  as  that  in  which  we  have  Him  here  before  us,  that 
of  one  who  has  suflFered  ani  overcome  (ver.  22).  The  appellation 
given  to  Jesus  in  the  second  clause,  and  probably  to  be  regarded  as  a 
second  cry,  points  onward  to  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  (9 :  9) 
quoted  in  ver.  15.  Hosanna  is  a  rendering  into  Greek  letters  of  the 
Hebrew  words,  'Save,  we  pray'  (Ps.  118:  25). 

Vers.  14,  15.  Jesus  '  found '  the  ass,  having  taken  means  to  find  it 
(comp.  Matt.  21 :  2 ;  Mark  11:1;  Luke  19 :  30 ;  comp.  also  chap. 
1 :  43).  It  is  a  'young'  ass,  expression  being  thus  given  to  the  fact 
that  it  had  not  been  previously  used  for  any  burden  (Mark  11  :  2). 
The  whole  passage  brings  out  a  view  of  Jesus  in  this  entry  into  Jeru- 
salem that  we  may  readily  forget.  We  see  at  once  the  glory  of  the 
Saviour.  He  who  thus  approaches  Jerusalem  is  a  King,  the  King  of 
Israel  (ver.  14),  the  King  of  Zion  (ver.  15) :  the  progress  is  royal :  the 
entry  is  triumphant.  But  the  main  thought  of  the  Evangelist  is  that 
humiliation,  suffering,  and  death  characterize  this  King :  He  is  a  sac- 
rifice :  and  in  being  a  sacrifice  His  true  glory  lies.     The  change  from 

*  Rejoice  greatly'  to  '  Fear  not'  (no  doubt  made  by  the  Evangelist  him- 
self, see  2:  17),  may  spring  from  his  profound  sense  of  the  majesty 
of  Jesus  (Rev.  1 :  17) :  there  is  fear  to  be  dispelled  before  the  joy 
of  His  presence  can  be  felt.  The  context  in  Zechariah,  however,  sug- 
gests another  sense.     The  King  comes  to  defend  His  people ;  He  comes 

*  having  salvation : '  let  Zion  fear  no  more.  So  understood,  John's 
words  contain  the  meaning  of  the  whole  passage  quoted.     The  prayer 

*  Hosanna '  is  answered. 

Ver.  16.  What  was  it  that  the  disciples  did  not  understand  at  the 
time  ?     The  true  application  of  the  prophecy  of  Zechariah  now  pointed 


272  JOHN  XII.  [12:  17,18. 

ciples  at  the  first :  but  when  Jesus  was  glorified,  then 
remembered  they  that  these   things  were  written  of 

17  him,  and  that  they  had  done  these  things  unto  hira. 
The  multitude  therefore  that  was  with  him  when  he 
called  Lazarus  out  of  tl?e  tomb,  and  raised  him  from 

18  the  dead,  bare  witness.  For  this  cause  also  the  multi- 
tude went  and  met  him,  for  that  they  heard  that  he 

out?  Certainly  not.  It  was  the  eyents  themselves  now  occurring 
that  were  dark  to  them.  They  were  not  seen  in  their  true  light  as  a 
magnifying,  as  a  prefigurative  glorifying,  of  a  suffering  Messiah, — 
were  not  seen  to  contain  within  them  the  great  mystery  of  exaltation 
through  and  in  the  midst  of  suffering.  For  similar  want  of  apprecia- 
tion by  the  disciples  of  what  was  passing  before  them,  comp.  2 :  22, 
and  note  there.  But  "when  Jesus  "svas  glorified,  etc.  The  igno- 
rance of  the  disciples  was  corrected  by  experience.  What  they  did 
not  understand  now,  they  understood  when  the  resurrection  and  as- 
cension had  taken  place.  The  light  of  that  glorification  shed  light 
alike  upon  the  sufferings  and  the  partial  glorifications  of  Jesus  that 
had  gone  before. 

Vers.  17,  18.  These  verses  are  not  a  returning  to  the  story  after  a 
digression  in  ver.  16,  nor  a  continuation  of  the  narrative,  as  if  the 
picture  had  not  yet  been  complete.  They  are  a  recapitulation  of  two 
leading  facts  already  mentioned,  the  first  of  which  seems  to  be  closely 
connected  with  the  second — -"(I)  that  many  of  'the  Jews,'  led  to  believe 
in  Jesus  by  the  miracle  which  they  had  seen  (11 :  45),  became  now, 
like  the  disciples,  themselves  His  witnesses ;  (2)  that  '  the  multitude,' 
although  they  had  not  seen  the  miracle,  yet  hearing  of  it,  had  also 
been  led  to  faith  and  homage  (12  :  12-15).  At  the  same  time,  how- 
ever, there  is  an  important  and  instructive  difference  between  the  two 
acts  thus  referred  to.     The  first  proceeds  from  those  who  had  been 

*  with  Him  when  He  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead  ;'  the  second  from 
those  who  had  not  themselves  been  witnesses  of  the  miracle,  but  had 

*  heard  that  He  had  done  this  sign.'  The  difference  corresponds  pre- 
cisely to  that  alluded  to  in  chap.  20  :  29  ;  and  it  thus  forms  an  in- 
teresting illustration  of  the  manner  in  which,  throughout  all  this  Gos- 
pel, the  Evangelist  seizes  upon  those  aspects  of  events  that  bring  out 
the  great  principles  of  which  his  mind  is  full.  The  correspondence 
appears  still  further  in  this,  that  the  homage  of  those  who  'did  not 
see '  is  that  of  the  second  picture  which,  as  always,  is  climactic  to  the 
first  (comp.  20:  29) ;  for  the  impression  produced  upon  the  mind  of 
John  by  the  second  act  of  homage  is  not  due  to  the  simple  circum- 
stance that  this  multitude  '  went  to  meet '  Jesus.  It  is  due  to  the 
titles  which  they  had  ascribed  to  Him  at  ver.  13,  the  one  expressing 
His  peculiar  Messianic  distinction,  the  other  rising  to  the  highest 
point  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  (comp.   on  1 :  49).     It  has   only 


12:  19-21.]  JOHN  XII.  273 


19  had  done  this  sign.  The  Pharisees  therefore  said 
among  themselves,  ^Behold  how  ye  prevail  nothing : 
lo,  the  world  is  gone  after  him. 

20  Xow  there  were  certain  Greeks  among  those  that 

21  went  up  to  worship  at  the  feast :  these  therefore  came 
to  Philip,   which  was  of  Bethsaida  of  Galilee,  and 

1  Or,  ye  beheld. 

further  to  be  noticed  that  the  effects  alluded  to  are  connected  with  the 
miracle  as  a  '  sign.'  As  such,  embodying  life  in  the  midst  of  death, 
life  triumphant  over  death,  it  draws  out  faith  to  a  spectacle  so  glorious, 
to  a  Worker  accomplishing  so  mighty  a  work. 

Ver.  19.  The  exaggeration  of  their  words  illustrates  the  alarm  and 
hopelessness  of  the  Pharisees.  The  impression  made  is  too  great  to 
permit  them  to  look  at  the  facts  only  as  they  are.  The  danger  of  the 
situation  is  enhanced  by  their  fears,  and  they  speak  more  strongly 
than  even  the  occasion,  striking  as  it  was,  demanded.  It  is  at  the 
same  time  highly  probable  that  the  Evangelist  sees  in  their  language 
one  of  those  unconscious  prophecies  so  frequently  noticed  in  his  Gos- 
pel. The  second  act  of  the  twelfth  chapter  is  over,  and  the  humbled 
Redeemer  is  still  the  conqueror.  The  third  act  presents  the  same  les- 
son in  a  still  more  striking  light. 

Ver.  20.  And  there  -were  some  Greeks  from  among  them 
that  came  up  to  vrorship  at  the  feast.  A  third  illustration  of 
homage  paid  to  Jesus.  The  account  is  given  by  John  alone.  From 
ver.  3G  we  may  perhaps  infer  that  it  was  considerably  later  in  the 
week  than  the  event  last  recorded  ;  but  the  want  of  any  definite  state- 
ment on  the  point,  and  the  fnct  that  the  issue  of  the  request  is  not  re- 
corded, show  that  the  Evangelist  occupies  himself  only  with  the  idea 
of  the  scene.  The  persons  spoken  of  are  Greeks  (not  Greek-speak- 
ing Jews),  therefore  Gentile  by  birth,  probably  proselytes,  certain- 
ly (as  appears  by  '  from  among '  not  '  among ' )  sharers  in  the 
faith  and  purposes  of  the  other  pilgrims  at  the  feast.  They  are  part" 
of  those  referred  to  in  chap,  7  :  3-3  aud  10  :  16.  Still  more,  they  are 
the  earnest  and  first-fruits  of  that  '  world  '  which  the  Pharisees  have 
just  spoken  of  as  '  going  after'  Jesus. 

Vers.  21,  12.  These  came  therefore  to  Philip,  etc.  Why 
these  Greeks  should  particularly  address  themselves  to  Philip  ;  why 
Philip  should  be  here  desciibed  as  '  from  Bethsaida  of  Galilee  ;'  why 
Philip  should  tell  Andrew ;  and  why  Andrew,  as  appears  from  the  pecu- 
liar mode  in  which  the  communication  is  mentioned,  should  have  been 
the  spokesman  of  the  pair,  are  questions  to  which  it  is  not  easy  to  give 
a  satisfactory  reply.  It  may  be  that  Philip  was  the  first  disciple  whom 
they  met ;  that  the  mention  of  his  place  of  residence  is  simply  for  more 
complete  identification  of  the  man  ;  that  the  bond  of  companionship 
between  him  and  Andrew  may  have  been  close  ;  and  that  Andrew, 
18 


274  JOHN  XII.  [12 :  22-24. 

22  asked  him,  saying,  Sir,  we  would  see  Jesus.  Philip 
Cometh   and  telleth  Andrew:    Andrew  cometh,  and 

23  Philip,  and  they  tell  Jesus.  And  Jesus  answereth 
them,  saying.  The  hour  is  come,  that  the  Son  of  man 

24  should  be  glorified.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
Except  a  grain  of  wheat  fall  into  the  earth  and  die, 
it  abideth  by  itself   alone ;  but  if  it  die,  it  beareth 

always  one  of  the  first  four  apostles  mentioned  in  the  apostolic  lists, 
may  have  stood  in  nearer  relation  to  Jesus  than  Philip,  or  perhaps 
have  been  the  more  ready  speaker  of  the  two.  The  more,  however, 
the  Gospel  of  John  is  studied,  the  less  shall  we  be  disposed  to  be  con- 
tent with  these  explanations,  or  to  think  that  there  was  nothing  fur- 
ther in  the  mind  of  a  writer  so  much  accustomed  to  see  even  in  appar- 
ently accidental  and  trifling  circumstances  deeper  meanings  than  those 
which  at  first  strike  the  eye.  Such  a  meaning  he  may  have  seen  in 
the  facts  which  he  now,  after  so  long  an  interval,  recalls.  It  is  wor- 
thy of  notice  that  in  chap.  6,  at  the  feeding  of  the  5000,  which  has 
undoubtedly  a  symbolical  as  well  as  a  literal  meaning,  not  only  are 
Philip  and  Andrew  the  only  two  disciples  named,  but  they  there  play 
exactly  the  same  part  as  in  the  present  instance  ;  for  Philip  is  first 
appealed  to  but  is  perplexed,  while  Andrew  draws  from  Jesus  the  so- 
lution of  the  difficulty.  Thus  also  in  the  incident  before  us,  John  may 
have  beheld  an  analogy  to  the  same  scene,  an  illustration  of  the  fact 
that  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  shall  be  conducted  by  the  same  path  to 
the  '  bread  of  life.'  These  hungering  Greeks  are  like  the  hungering 
Jews  when  the  loaves  were  multiplied,  and  those  whose  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  satisfying  the  latter  were  removed  by  the  word  of  Jesus, 
are  also  those  whose  difficulties  in  the  way  of  satisfying  the  former 
are  removed  by  the  same  word. 

Ver.  23  The  glorification  here  spoken  of  must  be  that  of  chap. 
13:  31,  32,  and  17:  1,  5,  the  latter  of  which  also  follows  a  moment 
designated  exactly  as  the  present  one, — '  The  hour  is  come.'  But  the 
*  glorification '  of  these  passages  consists  in  the  full  manifestation  of 
Jesus  when,  all  His  labors  and  3ufi"erings  over,  He  shall  be  elevated, 
with  the  Father,  to  the  possession  and  exercise  of  that  power  to  carry 
out  His  work  upon  its  widest  scale  which  was  now  limited  by  the  con- 
ditions of  His  earthly  lot.  Hence  the  bringing  in  of  the  Gentiles, 
though  it  does  not  constitute  that  glory,  is  immediately  connected 
with  it. 

Ver,  24.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you.  There  is  a  general 
principle  lying  at  the  root  of  the  glorification  of  the  '  Son  of  man.' 
This  is  now  to  be  explained  and  illustrated. — Except  a  corn  of 
■wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  itself  alone  ; 
but  if  it  die,  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit.  Absolute  death,  de- 
struction of  the  principle  of  life,  is  not  implied.      The  seed  does  not 


12:25,26.]  JOHN  XII.  275 

25  much  fruit.  He  that  loveth  his  4ife  loseth  it ;  and 
he  that  hateth  his  Hife  in  this  T\'orld  shall  keep  it  unto 

26  life  eternal.  If  any  man  serve  me,  let  him  follow  me ; 
and  where  I  am,  there  shall  also  my  servant  be  :  if 
any   man   serv^e    me,  him   will  the  Father  honour. 

1  Or,  soul 

actually  die  :  its  old  covering  dies  that  the  germ  of  life  within  may 
spring  up  in  higher  forms  of  beauty,  and  with  many  grains  instead  of 
one.  Such  is  the  law  of  nature,  and  to  this  great  law  Jesus  as  '  Son 
of  man  '  must  conform :  He  does  not  simply  lay  down  a  rule  for 
others ;  as  representative  of  our  humanity  the  rule  must  first  find  its 
application  in  Himself. 

Ver.  25.  He  that  loveth  his  soul  [r7>  -^Iwxvv']  loseth  it ;  and 
he  that  hateth  his  soul  in  this  world  shall  keep  it  unto  life 
[^wz/r]  eternal.  The  law  of  the  physical  world  just  spoken  illus- 
trates the  law  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  world.  '  Soul '  is  here  the 
personality,  the  self,  in  man  ;  yet  not  the  self  in  the  sense  of  selfish- 
ness, for  selfishness  must  be  destroyed  not  '  kept.'  It  is  rather  that 
which  constitutes  the  man  himself  with  his  likings  and  dislikings,  his 
loves  and  hatreds,  his  aff"ections  and  desires.  It  is  the  law  pf  the 
moral  world  then  that  he  who  so  loves  his  soul  loses  it.  By  simply 
living  for  himself  and  without  thought  of  others,  he  '  loses  '  that  very 
thing  which  he  desires  to  preserve  and  make  happy.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  that  in  this  world  '  hateth  his  soul,'  his  soul  not  brought  into 
subjection  to  that  law  of  love  which  is  the  law  of  God,  and,  so  hating, 
denies  and  crucifies  it  in  order  that  love  may  gain  the  mastery  in  him, 
— that  man  shall  '  keep  '  it,  shall  keep  it  too  unto  the  higher  Kfe  which 
is  not  merely  future,  but  which  is  even  now  filled  with  the  Divine  and 
deathless  (comp.  Luke  16:  2G). 

Ver.  26.  If  any  man  serve  me,  let  him  follow  me.  The 
words  apply  the  law  just  spoken  of  as  the  law  of  nature  and  man,  and 
therefore  also  as  the  law  of  Jesus,  to  every  individual.  The  '  follow- 
ing '  is  neither  general  nor  outward,  but  specific  and  inward, — a  follow- 
ing in  that  path  of  suifering  and  sacrifice  even  to  the  cross,  the 
thought  of  which  was  at  the  moment  peculiarly  present  to  the  mind 
of  Jesus  (comp.  13  :  36),  and  it  supposes  the  possession  of  His  spirit 
(comp.  8:  12).  A  special  empha'^is  lies  upon  the  first  *  Me,'  as  if  our 
Lord  would  say,  *  If  it  be  Me  that  any  man  would  serve.' — And 
where  I  am,  there  shall  also  my  servant  be,  in  that  glory  to 
which  I  am  immediately  to  be  exalted  (17:  24) — If  any  one 
serve  me,  him  will  the  Father  honor.  '  Any  one '  Jesus 
says,  for  the  thought  of  the  universality  of  His  salvation  now  fills  His 
breast ;  and  '  the  Father,'  even  He  who  will  be  to  all  His  sons  what  he 
is  to  the  Son.  We  ought  not  to  pass  these  last  two  clauses  without  ob- 
serving how,  amidst  all  that  equality  of  sonship  which  runs  through 


276  JOHN  XII. 


27  Now  is  my  soul  troubled  ;  and  what  shall  I  say  ? 
Father,  save  me  from  this  4iour.     But  for  this  cause 

28  came  I  unto  this  hoiu*.  Father,  glorify  thy  name. 
There  came  therefore  a  voice  out  of  heaven,  saying, 
I  have  both  glorified  it,  and   will   glorify  it  again. 

1  Or,  hour  f 

this  part  of  the  Gospel,  the  wide  distinction  between  the  Son  and  the 
sons  is  still  preserved.  In  that  future  home  of  which  Jesus  speaks  He 
is,  it  corresponds  to  His  nature  to  be  there  ;  they  shall  only  be 
brought  to  share  it:  He,  too,  is  the  Master,  they  '.serve.' 

Ver.  27.  Now  is  my  soul  troubled,  There  is  no  want  of  con- 
nection between  these  words  and  the  immediately  preceding  verses. 
The  connection,  on  the  contrary,  is  of  the  closest  kind.  Because  this 
is  the  moment  of  highest  exaltation  in  the  contemplation  of  the  uni- 
versal triumph  symbolized  in  the  coming  of  the  Greeks,  it  is  also  that 
when  all  the  intensity  of  suffering  by  which  the  triumph  is  procured 
is  most  present  to  the  mind  of  Jesus.  The  verb  '  troubled '  is  the 
same  as  in  11 :  33,'  He  troubled  Himself.' — And  what  shall  I  say  ? 
Not,  What  feelings  shall  I  cherish  at  this  hour  ?  What  mood  of  mind 
becomes  the  circumstances  in  which  I  am  placed  ?  but.  How  shall  I 
find  utterance  for  the  emotions  that  now  fill  my  breast  ? — Father, 
save  me  out  of  this  hour.  To  understand  these  words  interroga- 
tively, 'Shall  I  say.  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour?'  as  is  done  by 
many  commentators,  is  to  introduce  a  hesitation  into  the  mind  of 
Jesus  which  we  may  well  believe  never  had  place  in  it,  and  to  give 
the  utterance  a  sentimental  turn  at  variance  with  the  solemn  scene  ; 
on  the  other  hand,  viewed  as  a  direct  prayer  to  His  Heavenly  Father, 
they  are  the  exemplification  in  His  own  case  of  the  law  of  ver.  25. 
Jesus  prays  that  He  may  be  spared  the  bitterness  of  this  hour.  Matt. 
26  :  39  shows  that  Jesus  had  the  feeling — one  perfectly  free  from  sin 
— that  would  lead  Him  to  escape  suffering  and  death  ;  but  the  higher 
law  immediately  comes  in.  He  has  the  Father's  will  to  do.  To  it  He 
must  yield  His  life.  His  self.  Therefore  He  adds,  But  for  this  cause 
(that  the  Father's  narcemay  be  glorified,  ver.  28)  came  I  unto  this 
hour.  This  prayer,  however,  is  not  '  save  me  from '  but  '  save  me 
out  of  this  hour,' — not  for  freedom  from  suffering,  but  (comp.  Heb. 
5:7;  Acts  2:  31)  for  deliverance  out  of  it.  Such  a  prayer  is  as  con- 
sistent with  His  knowledge  of  'the  glory  that  should  follow'  as  is 
Matt.  26:  39  with  Matt.  16:  21.  But  the  very  prayer  for  deliver- 
ance is  checked.  '  For  this  cause  '  (that  He  may  be  delivered  out  of 
the  hour)  '  came  I  unto  this  hour:'  the  object  of  the  hour  of  suffering 
is  to  bring  triumjDh.  We  must  not  miss  the  emphasis  on  the  word 
'Father;'  it  is  not  simply  God's  but  the  Father's  glory  that  He 
desires. 

Ver.  28.     Father,  glorify  thy  name,       '  Let  Thy   glory   shine 


12:29,30.]  JOHN  XII.  277 

29  The  multitude  therefore,  that  stood  by,  and  heard  it, 
said  that  it  had  thundered  :    others  said,  An   angel 

30  hath  spoken  to  him.     Jesus   answered  and  said.  This 
voice  hath  not  come  for  my  sake,  but  for  your  sakes. 

forth  in  Thy  name,  in  Thy  character,  as  Father  and  in  all  that  is  in- 
volved in  establishing  Thy  fatherly  relation  to  men.'  —  There  came 
therefore  a  voice  out  of  heaven,  etc.  The  answer  is  a  voice 
from  heaven  which  is  supposed  (ver.  29)  by  some  to  be  thunder,  by 
others  to  be  that  of  an  angel.  Both  these  suppositions  disclose  the 
character  of  the  voice.  It  was  loud  and  terrible,  a  voice  of  awe  and 
majesty.  Such  is  always  the  meaning  of  thunder  both  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  New  (Ex.19:  16;  Job  26:  U;  Ps.  104:  7;  Rev. 
4:  5;  8:  5;  11:  19;  14:  2;  19:  6).  Such  is  the  voice  of  an  angel 
(Matt.  24:  31  ;  1  Thess.  4 :  16  ;  Rev.  5:  2).  Tha  mixed  '  thunder- 
ings  and  voices,'  too,  of  the  Apocalypse  are  an  instructive  comment 
on  this  voice,  while  the  connection  that  it  has  with  judgment  is  clearly 
indicated  by  our  Lord  Himself  in  vers.  30,  31.  If  this  was  the  man- 
ner of  the  voice,  its  contents  must  correspond,  and  it  seems  therefore 
altogether  inappropriate  to  refer  the  first  part  of  the  words  to  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  in  Israel  now  drawing  to  its  close,  the  second  part 
to  the  approaching  proclamation  of  salvation  to  the  Gentiles.  In  re- 
ality these  two  things  are  one,  and  both  of  them  are  already  ideally 
complete.  The  words  rather  express  the  unchangeableness  of  the 
purpose  of  Him  '  who  is  and  who  was  and  is  to  come,'  and  intimate 
that  the  great  work  whereby  God's  name  was  to  be  especially  glori- 
fied would  certainly,  as  resolved  on  in  et'ernity,  be  accomplished. 

Ver.  29.  That  a  real  voice  had  been  heard  is  obvious  from  the  fact 
that  the  words  are  actually  given  by  the  Evangelist  in  ver.  28,  and 
that  some  at  least  of  the  multitude  imagined  that  an  angel  had  spoken. 
It  had  not,  however,  been  understood  by  all ;  and  John's  object  in 
stating  this  appears  to  be  his  desire  to  bring  still  more  clearly  out  the 
mysterious  nature  of  the  voice, — one  the  apprehension  of  which  be- 
longed to  the  higher  regions  of  the  spiritual  life,  and  which  was  ne- 
cessarily dark  to  those  who  had  not  entered  into  the  Father's  plans. 
Jesus  understood  it.  The  Evangelist  did  so  too.  But  '  the  multitude' 
felt  only  that  God  was  there. 

Ver.  30.  Jesus  ans-wered  and  said,  Not  for  my  sake 
hath  this  voice  come,  but  for  your  sakes.  He  needed  not  the 
voice,  for  He  knew  that  He  was  one  with  the  Father,  and  that  He  was 
carrying  out  the  Father's  will.  But  they  might  not  comprehend  His 
suff"erings,  the  agony  of  soul  they  now  beheld,  the  death  immediately 
impending  ;  and.  therefore,  to  show  them  that  in  all  this  there  was 
no  defeat  on  His  part,  but  only  the  carrying  out  of  the  eternal  purpose 
of  the  Father,  the  words  were  spoken.  Then  Jesus  rises  to  the 
thought  of  that  victory  which,  at  this  the  very  moment  of  His  deepest 
humiliation  and  suffering,  He  beheld  accomplished. 


278  JOHN  XII.  [12 :  31-33. 

31  Now  is  Hhe  judgement  of  this  world:    now  shall  the 

32  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out.     And  I,  if  I  be 
lifted  up  ^from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  my- 

33  self.     But  this  he  said,  signifying  by  what  manner  of 

1  Or,  a  judgement.  2  Or,  out  oj. 

Ver.  31.  Now  is  there  judgment  of  this  world.  The  'now' 
is  the  'now'  of  ver.  27,  the  'hour'  of  ver.  28;  and  the  primary 
thought  to  be  taken  into  it  is  that  of  the  suffering  and  death  in  the 
midst  of  which  Jesus  stood,  and  which  in  the  purpose  of  God,  and  to 
the  eye  of  faith,  were  so  different  from  what  they  were  to  the  eye  of 
sense. — Now  shall  the  Prince  of  this  w^orld  be  cast  out. 
Again  we  have  the  '  now  '  that  we  have  already  had.  The  moment  is 
the  same  :  the  cause  producing  the  effect  the  same.  '  This  world  ' 
culminates  in  its  prince.  The  title  meets  us  again  in  16  :  11,  and, 
although  with  the  omission  of  the  '  this,'  in  chap.  14 :  30.  By  it  can 
only  be  understood  Satan,  whom,  indeed,  the  Jews  knew  as  the 
'  prince  of  the  world  '  excluding  Israel.  Here  there  is  no  such  ex- 
clusion ;  the  '  world '  is  again  used  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  term. 
In  its  prince  are  concentrated  the  powers  that  come  between  man  and 
God.  But  he  '  shall  be  cast  out,'  that  is  out  of  the  world  which  he 
has  ruled,  so  that  ideally  he  shall  have  no  more  power  in  it.  The  ex- 
pression '  cast  out '  is  very  remarkable  when  compared  with  its  use 
in  other  parts  of  this  Gospel  (6:  37  ;  9:  34,  35).  It  is  excommuni- 
cation from  a  holy  community,  or  scene,  or  synagogue,  or  world, 
which  is,  and  is  to  be,  God's  alone.  The  negative  side  of  the  victory 
of  Jesus  has  been  declared  ;  we  have  now  the  positive. 

Vers.  32,  83.  And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  on  high  out  of  the  earth, 
will  draw^  all  men  unto  myself,  etc.  'Myself  is  used  in  em- 
phatic contrast  with,  and  opposition  to,  the  '  prince  of  this  world.' 
To  Himself  Jesus  will  'draw'  men;  and  any  difficulty  connected 
with  this  is  not  to  be  met  by  weakening  the  force  of  the  word  '  draw,' 
but  by  taking  into  account  the  limitations  implied  in  the  context,  and 
in  the  nature  of  the  case.  The  lesson  alike  of  the  whole  Gospel  and 
of  experience  is  that  some  will  not  be  drawn.  They  resist  and 
quench  the  light.  They  love  and  choose  the  darkness.  In  the  same 
way  the  force  of  '  all  men  '  must  not  be  weakened,  although  we  ought 
to  keep  in  view  the  two  thoughts  which  the  context  shows  us  to  be 
prominent — (1)  that  not  'the  prince  of  this  world,'  but  Jesus  Himself 
shall  have  the  empire  of  the  world  ;  (2)  that  not  Jews  alone  but  Gen- 
tiles, some  of  whom  had  already  been  seeking  Him,  shall  be  drawn. 
*  All  men,'  however,  is  universal  in  its  meaning.  Jesus  would  not 
merely  draw  some,  He  would  draw  all ;  and  if  some  are  not  saved,  it 
is  because  they  deliberately  refuse  to  submit  themselves  to  His  influ- 
ence. The  condition  and  means  of  this  drawing  are  the  '  lifting  on 
high  of  Jesus  out  of  the  earth.'     What  is  this  '  lifting  on  high '  ?    The 


12:  34.]  JOHN  XII.  279 

34  death  he  should  die.  The  muhitude  therefore  an- 
swered him,  We  have  heard  out  of  the  law  that  the 
Christ  abideth  forever  ;  and  how  sayest  thou,  The  Son 
of  man  must  be  lifted  up  ?  who  is  this  Son  of  man  ? 

word  has  already  met  us  in  3  :  14  and  8  :  28  ;  and  in  the  first  of  these 
passages  in  particular  we  have  seen  that  it  must  be  referred  to  the  cru- 
cifixion. The  whole  context  of  this  verse  demands,  primarily  at  least, 
a  similar  reference.  The  thought  of  the  death  of  Jesus  is  prominent 
throughout.  Even  when  He  receives  the  homage  of  Mary,  of  the  mul- 
titude, of  the  Greeks,  He  has  upon  Him  the  stamp  of  death.  It  is 
thus  too  that  in  ver.  38  the  Evangelist  explains  the  expression  ;  and  his 
explanation  is  confirmed  by  the  remarkable  use  of  the  preposition  '  out 
of  instead  of  '  from.'  That  preposition  is  much  more  applicable  to  the 
crucifixion  than  the  ascension,  and  its  use  seems  to  imply  that  simple 
separation  from  the  earth  satisfies  the  conditions  that  are  in  the  mind 
of  Jesus.  At  the  same  time  the  thought  of  glorification  must  surely 
be  included  in  the  '  lifting  on  high.'  In  the  teaching  of  this  Gospel, 
indeed,  the  facts  of  crucifixion  and  glorification  go  together,  and  can- 
not be  separated  from  each  other.  The  dying  Redeemer  is  glorified 
through  death  :  the  glorified  Redeemer  died  that  He  might  be  glori- 
fied. The  crucifixion  is  the  complete  breaking  of  the  bond  to  earth  : 
it  is  the  introduction  of  the  full  reign  of  spiritual  and  heavenly 
power. 

Ver.  34.  The  '  multitude,'  who  are  Jews  not  Greeks,  have  rightly 
understood  the  words  of  Jesus  in  ver.  32  to  mean  a  lifting  on  high  by 
death.  But  they  have  learned  from  the  Scriptures  (here,  as  in  10: 
84,  called  'the  law') — probably  from  such  passages  as  2  Sam.  8:  13- 
15;  Fs.  72,  89,  110;  Isa.  9:  6,  7;  Dan.  7:  14— that  'the  Christ 
abideth  for  ever,'  that,  according  to  their  interpretation.  He  should 
have  a  glorious  and  eternal  reign  on  earth.  There  is  thus  an  irrecon- 
cilable contradiction  between  the  fate  expected  by  Jesus  and  the 
claims  which  they  might  perhaps  have  otherwise  allowed. — "Who  is 
this  Son  of  Man  ?  The  words  are  not  an  honest  inquiry  who  this 
Son  of  man  can  be,  and  how  He  can  be  the  Christ.  They  are  really  a 
rejection  of  the  claims  of  Jesus.  '  Who  is  this  ?  We  have  nothing  and 
shall  have  nothing  to  do  with  Him.'  The  interpretation  thus' given  is 
greatly  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  words  are  immediately  followed 
not  by  explanation,  but  by  solemn  warning  on  the  part  of  Jesus  (vers. 
35,  36),  and  by  the  Evangelist's  own  reflections  on  the  hardness  and 
perversity  of  man  (vers.  37-41) ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  in  a 
high  degree  suitable  to  the  place  occupied  by  them  in  the  Gospel. 
*  Son  of  man '  had  been  the  favorite  designation  by  Jesus  of  Himself. 
How  appropriate  is  it  that,  when  finally  rejected.  He  should  be  re- 
jected in  that  character  !  Have  we  not  here  also  another  illustration 
of  the  Evangelist's  love  of  commemorating  instances,  when,  against 
themselves  and  as  if  under  the  guidance  of  an  irresistible  power,  men 


280  JOHN  XII.  [12 :  35,  36. 

35  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them,  Yet  a  little  while  is 
the  light  ^among  you.  Walk  while  ye  have  the  light, 
that  darkness  overtake  you  not:  and  he  that  walk- 
eth  in  the  darkness  know^eth  not  whither  he  goeth. 

36  While  ye  have  the  light,  believe  on  the  light,  that  ye 
may  become  sons  of  light. 

1  Or,  in. 

were  compelled  to  ascribe  to  Jesus  in  contempt  epithets  which,  rightly 
understood,  were  His  highest  glory  ? 

Ver.  35.  Words  of  solemn  warning  that  they  had  a  day  of  grace 
granted  them,  but  that  it  was  now  drawing  to  a  close,  and  that,  if 
they  did  not  pass  beyond  all  doubts  to  faith,  they  would  be  overtaken 
by  darkness. — Walk  as  ye  have  the  light,  that  darkness  over- 
take you  not.  That  is,  '  Walk  in  accordance  with  the  fact  that  the 
light  now  shines  around  you.' — And  he  thatwalketh  in  the  dark- 
ness kno"weth  not  whither  he  goeth.  If  they  do  not  thus  walk, 
thus  come  to  the  light  (3  :  21  J,  the  darkness  will  overtake  them  ;  and 
instead  of  going  to  the  glory  to  which  Jesus  *  goeth,'  they  will  go 
blindly  to  destruction. 

Ver.  36.  As  ye  have  the  light,  believe  in  the  light.  Nay, 
not  only  let  them  come  to  the  light,  but  let  them  take  a  higher  step 
and  '  believe  in '  the  light,  that  is,  commit  in  trust  their  whole  being 
to  the  light. — That  ye  may  become  sons  of  light, — light  your 
father,  the  element  of  your  being,  and  no  darkness  at  all  in  you. 
Such  are  the  last  words  of  Jesus  which  the  Evangelist,  in  describing 
His  active  ministry,  has  thought  fit  to  record.  How  strikingly  do  they 
remind  us  of  the  opening  of  the  Gospel,  and  bind  apparently  far  dis- 
tant parts  of  His  work  into  one  !  In  the  Prologue  we  read  of  the 
Word  that  '  it  shineth  in  the  darkness,  and  the  darkness  overcame  it 
not'  (1 :  5).  Now  that  the  Word  has  become  incarnate,  has  lived,  has 
suifered,  has  been  condemned  to  die,  and  for  what  ?  that  we  believing 
in  Him,  embracing  Him  in  a  true  communion,  taking  His  life.  His 
light,  into  ourselves,  may  also  become  sons  of  light,  shining  in  the 
darkness,  and  the  darkness  overcoming  us  not. — These  things 
spake  Jesus,  and  having  gone  away  he  was  hidden  from 
them.  In  chap.  8 :  59  we  were  told  that  '  Jesus  hid  Himself,  and 
went  out  of  the  temple.'  Here,  (as  became  the  moment  that  closed 
His  public  ministry,  the  departure  is  moi-e  complete, — marked  by  a 
finality  which  had  no  existence  then.  It  is  supposed  by  many  com- 
mentators that  He  went  to  Bethany,  and  it  may  have  been  so.  But 
the  fact  to  be  mainly  observed  is  the  fresh  illustration  supplied  by 
John's  silence  of  the  manner  in  Avhich,  to  his  mind,  the  ideal  surpasses 
the  historic  interest.  The  departure  itself  and  the  consequent  close  of 
Israel's  probation  is  the  main  point.  All  else  passes  out  of  view  be- 
fore the  sad  reflection  upon  the  unbelief  which  Israel  has  exhibited. 


12 :  37,  38.]  JOHN  XII.  281 

Chapter  12 :  37-50. 

Lamentation  over  the  Unbelief  of  the  Jews,  and  Summary 
of  the  Public  3Iinistry  of  Jesus. 

These  things  spake  Jesus,  and  he  departed  and  ^  hid 

37  himself  from  them.      But  though  he  had  done  so 
many  signs  before  them,  yet  they  beheved  not  on  him : 

38  that  the  word  of  Isaiah  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled, 
which  he  spake, 

Lord,  who  hath  believed  our  report  ? 
And  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Lord  been  re- 
vealed ? 

1  Or,  was  hidden  from  them. 

Lamentation  over  the  Unbelief  of  the  Jews,  and  Summary  of  the  Public 
Ministry/  of  Jesus,  vers.  37-50. 

Contents. — The  public  ministry  of  Jesus  has  been  brought  to  a  close,  and  the  mo- 
ment has  been  marked  by  words  the  melancholy  pathos  of  which  can  hardly  be  mis- 
taken :  '  Having  gone  away,  He  was  hidden  from  them '  (ver.  3C).  These  words, 
applied  in  the  first  instance  to  the  outward  circumstances  of  the  Saviour,  receive  now 
at  the  hands  of  the  Evangelist  all  the  depth  of  their  meaning,  when  he  gives  us  his 
last  reflections  on  the  hardness  and  unbelief  displayed  by  Israel  in  rejecting  the  glo- 
rious self-manifestation  of  its  Lord  (vers.  37-43).  After  this  we  have  in  the  second 
part  of  the  section,  closing  the  fourth  and  leading  division  of  the  Gospel,  a  short  sum- 
mary of  that  teaching  of  Jesus  to  which  Israel  had  refused  to  listen  (vers.  447-50). 

Ver.  37.  The  words  of  chap.  1 :  10,  11,  seem  to  echo  in  our  ears  : 
'He  was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  came  into  being  through  Him, 
and  the  world  knew  Him  not.  He  came  unto  His  own  home,  and  His 
own  accepted  Him  not.'  All  the  particulars  of  the  statement  heighten 
the  effect.  In  the  original  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  emphasis  on 
*He' — One  so  full  of  power  and  grace,  so  divine  in  majesty,  so  human 
in  tenderness.  Then  it  was  '  signs '  that  He  had  wrought,  not  mere 
miracles,  but  things  that  were  the  very  expression  of  the  Son  and  in 
Him  of  the  Father.  These  signs,  too,  had  been  'so  many'  (see  note 
on  chap.  6:2);  for  it  is  number,  not  greatness,  that  in  our  Gospel  is 
always  referred  to  in  this  word  (chaps.  6  :  9  ;  14:  9;  21 :  11).  And, 
once  more,  the  signs  had  been  wrought  'before  them,'  so  that  they 
could  not  be  mistaken  (comp.  chap.  10 :  4).  Yet,  notwithstanding  all 
this,  their  unbelief  had  been  continued,  wilful,  as  constant  as  the  call 
addressed  to  them. 

Ver.  38.  The  quotation  is  from  Isa.  53:  1.  By  'report'  we  are 
to  understand  the  burden  of  the  prophet's  message,  the  word  as  heard 
ratlier  than  as  spoken  (comp.  2  Sam.  4:  4  in  the  Hebrew;  Rom.  10; 


282  JOHN  XII.  [12:  39,  40. 

39  For  this  cause  they  could  not  believe,  for  that  Isaiah 
said  again, 

40  He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  he  hardened  their 

heart ; 
Lest  they  should  see  with  their  eyes,  and  perceive 
with  their  heart, 

16;  1  Thess.  2:  18) ;  and  by  'arm  of  the  Lord,'  the  manifestation  of 
His  power  alike  in  the  deliverance  of  His  people  and  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  His  enemies  (Deut.  5 :  15 ;  Isa.  63:  5).  The  words  'that  it 
might  be  fulfilled,'  so  frequently  used  by  Matthew  as  he  points  out 
the  harmony  of  each  successive  event  with  the  Divine  plan  and  coun- 
sel, here  meet  us  for  the  first  time  in  this  Gospel.  More  is  meant 
than  what  we  commonly  understand  by  the  fulfilment  of  a  prediction. 
That  which  in  its  principle  and  its  partial  realization  connected  itself 
with  the  events  of  which  the  inspired  prophet  directly  spoke  is  here 
declared  to  be  '  filled  up,'  to  have  received  its  complete  accomplish- 
ment. By  whom  then,  and  in  what  circumstances,  were  the  words  of 
Isaiah  originally  spoken  ?  We  answer :  By  repentant  Israel ;  by 
Israel  after  it  has  come  to  faith,  and  when  it  looks  back  sorrowfully 
upon  the  fact  that  the  message  of  Jehovah's  love,  and  the  manifesta- 
tions of  His  power,  had  been  disregarded  by  the  great  body  of  the 
nation.  In  a  similar  spirit  the  Evangelist  now  looks  back,  seeing  in 
the  unbelief  which  rejected  the  Messiah  Himself  the  'fulfilment'  of 
that  unbelief  which  had  long  before  rejected  the  Messianic  message  of 
the  prophet.  Israel  was  ever  the  same :  '  As  their  fathers  did,  so  did 
they'  (Acts  7:  51);  they  'filled  up'  the  measure  of  their  fathers 
(Matt.  23 :  32).  This  is  the  explanation  of  what  caused  John  so  much 
astonishment  and  sorrow.     But  it  is  not  all. 

Vers.  39,  40.  '  For  this  cause '  does  not  refer  so  much  to  the  words 
themselves  of  the  preceding  verse,  as  to  that  Divine  plan  which  John 
sees  that  they  express,  and  whose  further  progress,  involving  a  judi- 
cial hardening  of  those  who,  as  we  have  seen,  had  first  hardened 
themselves,  is  expressed  in  the  words  that  follow.  The  quotation  is 
from  Isa.  6 :  9,  10,  and  the  changes,  especially  in  that  from  the  com- 
manding to  the  narrative  form,  are  only  such  as  the  prophet  himself 
would  have  made  had  he  taken  up  the  position  of  our  Evangelist,  and, 
at  the  close  of  his  prophetic  ministry,  related  what  he  had  been  made 
the  instrument  of  effecting.  Israel  was  so  wilfully  rejecting  God  in 
the  prophet's  days,  that  the  moment  for  God's  judicial  treatment  of 
His  people  had  come.  By  him,  therefore,  God  sent  them  a  new  mes- 
sage, that  by  their  rejection  of  it  the  blinding  of  their  eyes  and  the 
hardening  of  their  hearts  might  be  complete;  that  they  might  finally 
and  conclusively  reject  the  tidings  through  which,  otherwise,  Isaiah 
would  have  'healed'  them.  Was  not  this  exactly  what  had  happened 
now?     He  in  whom  all  the  prophets  of  Israel  were  'fulfilled'   had 


12:  41.]  JOHN  XII.  288 

And  should  turn, 
And  I  should  heal  them. 
41  These  things  said  Isaiah,  because  he  saw  his  glory ; 

come ;  and  Jolin  sees  Him  uttering  His  mournful  complaint  over  that 
wilful  obstinacy  of  Israel  which  had  provoked  the  judicial  dealings  of 
God,  in  the  same  language  as  that  in  which  His  servant  of  old,  had 
he  been  speaking  in  the  narrative  form,  would  have  spoken.  Thus 
the  words  of  the  Lord  to  Isaiah  (6:  9,  10),  now  quoted,  describe  the 
radical  and  unchanging  condition  of  carnal  Israel ;  and,  as  applied 
here,  they  mean  that  God  had  made  the  self-manifestation  of  Jesus 
the  instrument  of  blinding  and  hardening  those  who  had  chosen  un- 
belief. Thus  also,  it  will  be  observed,  God  is  the  subject  of  'hath 
blinded'  and  of  '  hardened ;'  and  'I  should  heal  them'  must  be  un- 
derstood of  Jesus  Himself.  Hence,  accordingly,  the  remarkable 
words  of  the  next  verse. 

Ver.  41.  These  things  said  Isaiah,  because  he  saw  his 
glory;  and  he  spake  concerning  him.  When  we  remember 
that  the  chapter  of  Isaiah  from  which  the  quotation  of  vers.  39,  40  is 
taken  is  that  in  which  the  prophet  sees  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  it  may 
appear  at  first  sight  as  if  it  were  only  the  glorious  vision  there  beheld 
by  him  that  is  here  referred  to.  Yet  it  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that 
this  41st  verse,  connected  as  it  is  in  the  closest  manner  with  the 
words  immediately  preceding  it,  must  really  refer  to  that  work  of 
Christ  to  which  the  Evangelist  had  applied  the  prophet's  words;  and 
that  '  His  glory '  must  point  to  the  glory  of  the  self-manifestation  of 
Jesus  by  means  of  the  'signs'  of  ver.  37  (comp.  2:  11).  It  is  clear, 
therefore,  that  John  intentionally  unites  that  Jesus  who  is  the  'I'  in 
*I  shall  heal  them'  with  'the  Lord'  spoken  of  in  Isa.  6:  1,  etc., — 
unites,  in  short,  the  Incarnate  Word  as  Messiah  and  Prophet  and  the 
Divine  Word  in  His  glory,  '  sitting  on  a  throne  high  and  lifted  up, 
and  His  train  filling  the  temple.'  But  that  is  precisely  the  lesson  of 
his  whole  Gospel ;  and  it  is  this  truth,  so  deeply  imbedded  in  it,  that 
gives  unity  and  force  to  the  passage  we  have  been  considering.— One 
point  must  still  be  briefly  noticed.  If  the  Jews  were  thus  doomed  to 
unbelief,  where  was  their  guilt  ?  The  answer  is,  that  they  are  sup- 
posed to  have  wilfully  rejected  the  revelation  and  grace  of  God  before 
that  point  of  their  history  is  reached  which  is  now  in  the  eye  both  of 
prophet  and  Evangelist.  Their  whole  previous  training  ought  to  have 
prepared  them  for  receiving  the  claims  of  Jesus.  They  abused  that 
training;  they  ceased  to  be  'of  the  truth;'  they  blinded  themselves; 
and  judicial  blindness  followed.  It  is  only  necessary  to  add  that  what 
we  have  spoken  of  as  a  '  previous '  training  may  belong  to  the  order 
of  thought  rather  than  to  that  of  time.  Almost  at  the  very  instant 
when  the  Almighty  appeals  to  me  by  the  presentation  of  Jesus,  He 
may  be  appealing  to  me  by  His  providence.  His  grace,  the  general 
working  of  His  Spirit,  so  as  to  make  me  ready  to  receive  Jesus ;  these 


284  JOHN  XII.  [12:  42-44. 

42  and  he  spake  of  him.  Nevertheless  even  of  the  rulers 
many  believed  on  him ;  but  because  of  the  Pharisees 
they  did  not  confess  ^  it,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of 

43  the  synagogue :  for  they  loved  the  glory  of  men  more 
than  the  glory  of  God.* 

44  And  Jesus  cried  and  said,  He  that  belie veth  on  me, 

1  Or,  him. 

*  For  "  the  glory  of  men  .  .  .  the  glory  of  God  "  read  "  the  glory  that  U  of  men  ... 
the  glory  that  is  of  God." — Am.  Com. 

dealings  I  may  so  use  thr.t  the  bent  of  my  character  may  at  once  ap- 
pear, and  if  I  am  judicially  doomed  to  darkness,  the  very  sentence 
that  dooms  me  is  the  consequence  of  my  own  folly  and  sin. 

Ver.  42.  Nevertheless,  even  from  among  the  rulers  many- 
believed  in  him.  The  language  -which  John  used  is  general :  as  a 
nation  Israel  has  rejected  Jesus.  But  His  mission  has  not  been  with- 
out effect  on  many  individuals  (comp.  chaps.  1:  11,  12;  3:  32,  33); 
even  from  among  the  members  of  the  Sanhedrin  (see  7:  48)  many  be- 
lieved in  Him,  Persons  believed,  belonging  to  a  body  in  which  the 
bitterest  foes  of  Jesus  bore  rule;  and  greatness  of  unbelief  is  thus  in 
some  degree  counterbalanced  by  greatness  of  faith. — But  because 
of  the  Pharisees  they  did  not  confess  him,  lest  they  should 
be  put  out  of  the  synagogue.  Although  their  faith  was  genuine, 
it  needed  strength  and  growth.  It  was  not  powerful  enough  to  sur- 
mount the  obstacles  placed  in  its  way  by  the  resolution  of  chap.  9:  22; 
and  it  had  not  reached  the  point  at  which  alone  it  could  be  said  that, 
in  'leading  out'  its  possessors  after  the  true  Shepherd,  its  complete 
victory  was  gained  (chap.  10:  3,  4).  On  the  prominence  now  given 
to  the  Pharisees  among  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  see  note  on  chap.  7  :  32. 

Ver.  43.  Because  they  loved  the  glory  of  men  more  than 
the  glory  of  God.  It  may  seem  at  iirst  sight  as  if  these  words 
were  inconsistent  with  those  of  chap.  5 :  44,  and  the  apparent  incon- 
sistency is  not  to  be  removed  either  by  giving  to  the  word  translated 
'glory'  its  etymological  signification  'opinion,'  or  by  supposing  that 
the  faith  of  these  rulers  was  not  true.  The  solution  of  the  difficulty  is 
to  be  found  in  observing  ( 1 )  that  the  '  glory '  here  referred  to  is  that 
of  vers.  23  and  41,  a  glory  involving  the  unity  of  Jesus  and  His  peo- 
ple. Let  the  latter  identify  themselves  with  the  former,  take  up  His 
cross,  have  part  in  His  sufferings  and  death,  '  confess'  Him,  and  they 
shall  also  be  partakers  of  His  '  glory.'  This  is  not  exactly  the  same 
glory  as  that  of  chap.  5 :  44. — (2)  That  the  form  of  expression  is  not 
the  same,  here  'of  God,'  'of  men' — there  'from  God,'  the  preposition 
used  in  the  latter  case  leading  more  directly  to  the  thought  of  glory 
oflFered  by  God,  and  deliberately  rejected.  The  reflections  of  the 
Evangelist  are  at  an  end,  and  once  more  Jesus  is  introduced  to  us. 

Ver.  44.  But  Jesus  cried  and  said.  In  what  sense  are  we  to 
understand  the  cry  and  utterance  about  to  be  mentioned  ?     Was  it 


12  :  45,  46.]  JOHN  XII.  285 

45  believeth  not  on  me,  but  on  him  that  sent  me.     And 
he  that  beholdeth  me  beholdeth  him  that  sent  me. 

46  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that  whosoever  be- 

public  or  priyate?  Or  is  it  strictly  speaking  no  utterance  of  Jesus  at 
all,  but  only  a  summary  by  the  Evangelist  himself  of  the  main  points 
of  that  teaching  of  Jesus  which  he  had  recorded  in  the  previous  part 
of  his  Gospel  ?  That  it  was  not  public  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  the 
ministry  had  closed  at  ver.  36.  That  it  was  not  private  is  equally 
clear,  partly  from  the  use  of  'cried'  (comp.  7:  28,  37),  partly  because 
the  nature  and  tone  of  the  words  themselves  are  such  as  to  suggest 
that  Jesus  is  speaking  to  '  the  Jews,'  not  to  His  disciples.  The  only 
supposition  therefore  is,  that  the  passage  contains  an  epitome  or  sum- 
mary of  the  words  of  Jesus  to  the  Jews.  The  words  'cried  and  said' 
are  therefore  equivalent  to — This  was  the  teaching  of  Jesus  when  He 
spake  openly  to  the  world.  The  Evangelist,  however,  does  not  give 
the  summary  in  his  own  words,  but  (we  can  hardly  doubt)  makes  use 
of  actual  sayings  uttered  by  his  Master  at  various  times — sayings 
which  for  the  most  part  combine  and  give  forcible  expression  to  truths 
which  we  have  found  stated  in  the  discourses  of  this  Gospel.  There 
is  in  this  section  but  little  that  is  new ;  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 
very  little  actual  repetition  of  verses  from  earlier  chapters.  The 
words  were  spoken  by  Jesus;  the  selection  is  made  by  John. — He 
that  believeth  in  me,  believeth  not  in  me,  but  in  him  that 
sent  me.  This  is  the  first  and  almost  the  only  place  in  this  Gospel 
(see  chap.  14:  1)  in  which  the  words  'believe  in,'  so  constantly  asso- 
ciated with  our  Lord  (see  chap.  2:  11),  are  used  in  reference  to  the 
Father.  Once,  indeed,  in  chap.  5 :  24,  the  Authorized  Version  reads: 
'believeth  on  Him  that  sent  me;'  but,  as  we  have  seen,  this  is  a  mis- 
translation. Xo  words  could  more  strikingly  express  what  Jesus  had 
accomplished  for  those  who  received  Him :  He  had  led  them  to  the 
Father,  and  through  Jesus  they  are  now  believers  in  God  (1  Pet.  1 : 
21),  'throwing  themselves  with  absolute  trust'  on  God  revealed  in 
Christ.  Hence  the  appropriateness  of  the  words  in  this  place,  where 
the  full  effect  of  the  mission  of  Jesus  upon  the  many  (ver.  40)  and 
upon  the  few  is  traced.  The  form  of  expression  here  recalls  chap.  7 : 
16  ;  as  there  Jesus  declares  that  the  words  which  He  speaks  are 
words  received  from  God,  so  here  that  the  faith  He  has  awakened  and 
rendered  possible  is  faith  in  God.  In  each  relation  He  is  Mediator 
between  God  and  men. 

Ver.  45.  And  he  that  beholdeth  me,  beholdeth  him  that 
sent  me.  In  chap.  6 :  40  (see  note)  we  have  the  same  combination 
as  in  these  verses :  '  He  that  beholdeth  the  Son  and  believeth  in  Him.' 
A  little  later  the  same  thought  finds  fuller  expression  in  words  ad- 
dressed to  disciples  (14:  9),     Comp.  1 :  18  ;  15  :  24. 

Ver.  46.  As  light  I  have  come  into  the  world,  that  every 
one  that  believeth  in  me  may  not  abide  in  the  darkness. 
Here  we  have  the  substance  of  the  Savioui-'s  last  words  to  the  multi- 


286  JOHN  XII.  [12:  47-49. 

47  lievetli  on  me  may  not  abide  in  the  darkness.  And 
if  any  man  hear  my  sayings,  and  keep  them  not,  I 
judge  him  not :  for  I  came  not  to  judge  the  world, 

.48  but  to  save  the  world.  He  that  rejecteth  me,  and 
receiveth  not  my  sayings,  hath  one  that  judgeth  him : 
the  word  that  I  spake,  the  same  shall  judge  him  in 

49  the  last  day.     For  I  spake  not  from  myself ;  but  the 

tude  (vers.  35,  36)  and  the  earlier  sayings  of  8  :  12 ;  9 :  5 ;  but  no- 
where has  it  been  as  clearly  taught  that  all  are  *  in  the  darkness ' 
until  by  faith  in  Jesus  they  receive  light.  Comp.  3  :  19  (Acts  26 :  18  ; 
Col.  1 :  13),  and  especially  vers.  4,  5,  in  the  Prologue.  It  is  easy  to 
trace  a  certain  connection  of  thought  in  these  verses,  though  from  the 
nature  of  the  case  the  connection  is  not  always  very  close.  The  first 
two  (44,  45)  are  occupied  with  the  relation  between  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  and  the  Father  who  sent  Him;  the  next  three  (46,  47,  48),  with 
the  relation  of  Jesas  to  the  world  ;  the  last  two,  with  His  relation  to 
the  Father.  From  beholding  (ver.  45)  to  light  is  a  natural  transition  ; 
from  this  point  each  verse  directly  leads  the  way  to  that  which  fol- 
lows it.  The  thought  is  at  first  expressed  in  the  language  of  figure 
(ver.  46),  then  with  studious  plainness  and  simplicity. 

Ver.  47.  And  if  any  one  shall  have  heard  my  sayings  and 
have  guarded  them  not.  It  is  necessary  here  to  introduce  an 
unusual  word  in  the  translation.  To  '  keep  '  the  sayings  or  words  of 
Jesus  is  a  phrase  which  often  meets  us  in  this  Gospel  (8 :  51,  etc.)  : 
'  guard '  is  an  uncommon  word  with  the  Evangelist,  found  only  here 
and  in  ver.  25,  and  (in  conjunction  with  'keep')  in  chap.  17:  12. 
That  the  sayings  may  be  kept  and  not  lost  from  memory  and  life,  they 
must  be  guarded  with  all  care  and  watchfully  observed.  Comp.  Matt. 
7 :  26  ;  Luke  6  :  49.— I  judge  him  not :  for  I  came  not  to  judge 
the  world,  but  to  save  the  world.     Comp.  3  :  17  ;  8 :  15. 

Ver.  48.  From  the  '  forgetful  hearer,'  whose  carelessness  or  indif- 
ference has  let  slip  the  words  he  should  have  '  guarded,'  Jesus  passes 
to  the  man  who  sets  at  nought  both  His  word  and  Himself.  Even  to 
him  that  word  shall  come,  but  as  a  judge.  As  Moses  was  the  accuser 
of  the  people  (chap.  5 :  45)  because  his  word,  though  honored  in  pro- 
fession, was  disregarded  in  its  spirit  and  design,  so  the  very  word  of 
Jesus  which  theyhave  rejected  shall  declare  their  doom.  The  word 
bore  with  it  evidence  that  it  was  God's  word  :  they  heard  not  because 
they  were  not  of  God  (8:   14,  47). 

Ver.  49.  Because  I  spake  not  of  myself ;  but  the  Father 
w^ho  sent  me,  he  hath  given  me  a  commandment,  w^hat  I 
should  say,  and  what  I  should  speak.  With  the  first  words 
compares:  34;  5:  19;  7:  16,  17;  8:  28;  14:  24.  Of  receiving  a 
♦  commandment '  from  the  Father  Jesus  has  spoken  once  only  (chap. 
10 :  18),  but  in  later  chapters  we  have  the  same  thought  (14 :  31  ; 


12:  50;  13:1.]  JOHN  XIII.  287 

Father  which  sent  me,  he  hath  given  me  a  command- 
ment, what  I  should  say,  and  what  I  should  speak. 
50  And  I  know  that  his  commandment  is  life  eternal :  the 
things  therefore  which  I  speak,  even  as  the  Father 
hath  said  unto  me,  so  I  speak. 

Chapter  13:  1-20. 

The  Foot-washing. 

1  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  passover,  Jesus  know- 
ing that  his  hour  was  come  that  he  should  depart  out 
of  this  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved  his  own 
which  were  in  the  world,  he  loved  them  ^unto  the 

1  Or,  to  the  uttermost. 

15  :  10),  ■svhich  indeed  is  implied  wherever  He  has  spoken  of  Himself 
assent  by  the  Father  into  the  world.  This  commandment  is  the  ex- 
pression of  the  Divine  plan  for  the  salvation  of  the  world  (chap.  3: 
14-16)  The  combination  of  'say'  and  'speak'  in  the  last  clause  is 
remarkable  :  see  the  note  on  chap.  8  :  43. 

Yer.  50.  The  substance  of  the  divine  commandment  is  contained  in 
the  word  of  Jesus,  and  His  word  gives  life  eternal,  His  word  is  life 
(5  :  24 ;  6  :  63,  68). 

The  Foot-washing,  vers.  1-20. 

Contents. — We  here  enter  upon  the  fifth  of  those  sections  into  which  the  Gospel  is 
divided  ;  and  the  section  extends  to  the  close  of  chap.  17.  The  scene  and  the  circum- 
stances of  the'  actors  in  it  are  altogether  different  from  what  we  have  witnessed  in 
chaps.  5  to  12.  There  is  a  transition  from  the  '  world '  and  the  '  Jews,'  its  leading  re- 
presentatives, to  the  circle  of  the  most  intimate  friends  of  Jesus,  from  struggle  to 
quietness  and  peace,  from  denunciation  of  sin  to  an  outpouring  of  the  most  tender 
affection  in  act,  discourse,  and  prayer.  The  consequence  is  that  nowhere  in  the  Gos- 
pel have  we  so  full  a  revelation  of  the  Fathers  purpose  and  work,  of  the  Son's  relation 
to  it,  of  the  great  New  Covenant  gift  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  the  duties,  privileges,  and 
hopes  of  that  Church  of  Christ  which,  after  He  went  awny,  was  to  take  His  place,  as 
we  find  in  these  chapters.  The  first  scene  in  the  section  is  the  Foot-washing.  The 
subordinate  parts  are — (1)  vers.  1-11 ;  (2)  vers.  12-20. 

Yer.  I.  Now  before  the  feast  of  the  passover,  Jesus, 
knowing  that  his  hour  was  come  that  he  should  pass  out 
of  this  world  unto  the  Father,  having  loved  his  ow^n  w^hich 
were  in  the  w^orld,  loved  them  to  the  full.  In  this  verse  we 
have  first  a  chronological  notice,  and  next  a  description  in  three  par- 
ticulars of  one  side  of  the  circumstances  of  the  scene.  (1)  The  chro- 
nological notice,  '  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover.'     The  Passover  is 


288  JOHN  XIII.  [13:  2. 

2  end.     And  during  supper,  the  devil  having  already 
put  into  the  heart  of  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's  son,  to 

that  mentioned  in  12:  1,  and  more  particularly  described  in  11  :  55 
as  •  the  Passover  of  the  Jews.'  It  is  significant  that  these  last  words, 
'  of  the  Jews,'  are  dropped  in  the  expression  before  us.  Jesus  will 
partake  of  '  the  Passover,'  but  not  of  '  the  Passover  of  the  Jews;'  of 
the  great  national  ordinance  of  Israel,  but  not  of  an  ordinance  the 
true  spirit  and  meaning  of  which  had  perished  ;  and  which,  as  cele- 
brated by  '  the  Jews,'  had  degenerated  into  an  outward  carnal  form 
repulsive  to  the  truly  spiritual  mind  (comp.  on  2  :  13).  The  preposi- 
tion '  before'  is  indeterminate,  and  is  as  suitable  to  an  event  happen- 
ing immediately,  Rs  to  one  happening  days,  before.  (2)  The  circum- 
stances of  one  side  of  the  scene,  three  in  number.  First,  the  leading 
person  in  it,  '  Jesus,  knowing  that  His  hour  was  come,'  etc.  Cer- 
tainly not  '  although  He  kncAv,'  but  because  He  knew  that  He  was 
about  to  be  delivered  from  the  toil  and  suffering  of  the  world,  and  to 
be  reunited  to  the  Father  in  the  blessedness  of  the  most  intimate  com- 
munion with  Him  (comp.  on  1 :  1).  Second,  the  persons  with  whom 
He  deals.  They  were  •  His  own ;'  and  they  were  '  in  the  world,' 
amidst  its  dangers  and  difficulties  and  sorrows.  Third,  the  feelings  of 
the  heart  of  Jesus, — love,  not  the  mere  love  of  friendship,  but  a  sol- 
emn, deep,  divine  love  Thus  indeed  He  had  always  loved  '  His  own,' 
but  His  love  now  gains  additional  intensity ;  He  loved  them  « to  the 
full.'  This  expression  does  not  mean  '  to  the  end,'  for  which  another 
phrase  is  always  used  (Heb.  3:  6,  14;  6:  11;  Rev.  2:  26).  It  is 
best  explained  by  1  Thess.  2  :  16,  '  to  the  uttermost :'  the  love  of  Jesus 
now  reaches  its  highest  point.  It  may  be  well  to  remind  our  readers 
that  we  shall  now  ever  and  again,  until  at  least  we  reach  the  close  of 
chap.  19,  meet  expressions  having  a  bearing  on  the  great  controversy, 
not  yet  conclusively  laid  at  rest,  as  to  the  day  on  which  the  Last  Sup- 
per was  eaten  by  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  as  well  as  to  that  on  which 
the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  took  place.  Here  the  first  of  these  two  points 
especially  concerns  us ;  and,  without  going  into  all  the  particulars,  we 
would  simply  recall  attention  to  the  fiict  that  the  question  is,  'Did 
Jesus  eat  the  passover  on  the  usual  night,  that  appointed  by  the  law, 
viz.,  the  14th  of  Nisan,  or  did  He  eat  it  on  the  evening  oiih.& previous 
day  ?*  It  will  hardly  be  denied  that  the  expressions  here  employed 
point  most  naturally  to  the  regular,  legal  night.  We  have  already 
said  that  with  this  view  the  word  'before'  in  this  verse  is  perfectly 
consistent.* 

Ver.  2.  And  a  supper  being  begun,  the  devil  having  al- 
ready put  it  into  his  heart  that  Judas  Iscariot,  Simon's 
son,  should   betray  him.     It  is  important  to  notice  the  exact  par- 

*  [This  is  the  correct  view,  held  also  by  Lightfoot,  Lange,  Wieseler,  Hengstenberg, 
Keil,  Robinson,  etc.  Christ  ate  the  lega'  passover  on  the  14th  Nisan  and  was  crucified 
on  the  15th  (a  Friday).    The  first  three  Evangelists  cannot  have  been  mistaken  on 


13:  3]  JOHN  XIII.  289 

3  betray   him,    Jesus,    knowing  that    the   Father   had 
given  all  things  into  his  hands,  and  that  he  came  forth 

allelism  of  this  verse  to  the  preceding,  both  in  the  note  of  time,  and 
in  the  circumstances  of  the  scene.  (1)  The  chronological  notice,  'a 
supper  being  begun.'  It  was  during  the  course  of  the  supper,  not 
after  it  was  ended,  that  the  events  to  be  spoken  of  took  place.  That 
this  'supper'  was  not  the  'feast'  properly  so  called  appears  from  the 
name  '  a  supper,'  not  '  the  feast,'  from  ver.  29,  where  the  '  feast '  is 
not  yet  or  only  just  begun,  and  from  the  absence  of  the  article,  which 
could  hardly  have  been  wanting  had  the  word  '  supper '  taken  up 
again  the  'feast'  of  ver.  1.  It  was  the  preliminary  meal  at  the  close 
of  which  the 'feast'  was  celebrated.  (2j  The  circumstances  of  the 
other  side  of  the  scene,  three  in  number.  First,  the  devil,  who  had 
'  already '  plotted  the  destruction  of  Jesus,  and  had  fixed  on  Judas  as 
the  instrument.  Second,  Judas  Iscariot,  the  victim  of  the  devil's 
wiles.  Third,  the  feelings  of  the  devil's  heart, — treachery,  hatred,  at 
the  point  of  intensity  when  what  had  been  long  determined  on  shall 
be  fulfilled.  The  three  particulars  are  in  the  sharpest  contrast  with 
those  in  ver.  1, — the  devil  with  Jesus,  Judas  with  *  His  own.'  trea- 
chery with  love.  Darkness  is  over  against  light,  earth  over  against 
heaven,  the  lie  over  against  the  truth  ;  and  between  these  .Jesus  takes 
His  way.  What  has  been  said  ought  to  remove  the  objection  felt  by 
many  to  the  translation  which  we  have  given  of  this  verse.  None 
will  deny  that  it  is  the  correct  translation  of  the  best  established  Greek 
text,  but  it  is  thought  to  be  impossible  to  speak  of  the  heart  of  Satan. 
The  expression,  it  will  be  seen,  springs  from  the  Evangelist's  mode  of 
thought,  as  he  seeks  a  contrast  to  the  heart  of  Jesus  (comp.  the  mar- 
ginal rendering  of  Job  1 :  8  ;  2  :  3  :  '  Hast  thou  set  thy  heart  on  ?  '). 
Ver.  3.  Jesus  knowing  that  the  Father  had  given  him 
all  things  into  his  hands,  and  that  he  came  forth  from  God, 
and  goeth  unto  God.  We  have  now  that  state  of  mind  in  Jesus 
which  leads  to  the  act  about  to  be  described.  '  Knowing '  takes  up 
again  the  same  word  in  ver.  1,  and  has  the  same  meaning,  'because 
he  knows.'  The  knowledge  is  summed  up  in  three  particulars — (1) 
That  'the  Father  had  given  all  things  into  His  hands  ; '  the  tense  ex- 
pressing no  presentiment  of  coming  power,  but  an  act  already  past. 

(2)  That  '  He  came  forth  from  God;'  the  words  expressing  not  His 
Divine  original,  which  would  have  required  another  form  of  expres- 
sion, but  that  He  had  left  the  presence  of  God  as  the  '  Sent'  of  God. 

(3)  That  'He  goeth  unto  God,'  as  one  who  has  executed  His  commis- 
sion. The  three  clauses  thus  refer  not  to  power  or  glory  belonging  to 
Jesus  as  the  Son  of  God:  they  connect  themselves  with  His  work  of 
redeeming  love. 

the  date  of  so  great  an  event,  and  it  is  much  easier  to  harmonize  John's  statements 
with  clironology  (the  13th  and  14th  Nisan).     Soe  for  particulars  Lange  on  Matthew 
and  John,  Robinson,  Harmony,  and  Schaff,  Cfiur<:h  Hist.,  rcvitud  cd.,  vol.  I. — P.  S.l 
I 'J 


290  JOHN  XIII.  [13:  4-7. 

4  from  God,  and  goetli  unto  God,  riseth  from  supper, 

5  and  layeth  aside  his  garments  ;  and  he  took  a  towel 
and  girded  himself.  Then  he  poureth  water  into  the 
bason,  and  began  to  wash  the  disciples'  feet,  and  to 
wipe  them  with  the  towel  wherewith  he  was  girded. 

6  So  he  Cometh  to  Simon  Peter.     He  saith  unto  him, 

7  Lord,  dost  thou  wash  my  feet  ?  Jesus  answered  and 
said  unto  him.  What  I  do  thou  knowest  not  now ;  but 

Ver.  4.  He  riseth  from  the  supper,  and  layeth  down  his 
garments,  and  having  taken  a  towel  girded  himself.     How 

wonderful  the  act  when  compared  with  the  circumstances  (mentioned 
in  the  previous  verse)  by  which  it  is  introduced  !  In  the  fullest  con- 
sciousness of  the  glory  of  that  work  of  redeeming  love  which  He  had 
undertaken,  He  who  was  in  the  'form  of  God'  assumed  the  'form,' 
and  did  the  work,  of  '  a  servant,'  a  slave, — nay,  felt  that  to  do  this 
was  glory.  What  He  does,  too,  is  rendered  all  the  more  striking  by 
the  fact  that  the  remarkable  scene  described  in  Luke  22 :  24, — the 
strife  among  the  disciples  which  should  be  the  greatest, — may  have 
just  occurred.  In  contrast  with  that  eager  desire  among  His  servants 
for  superior  station  in  the  world,  the  Master  '  riseth,'  'layeth  down' 
His  outer  garments,  and  '  girdeth '  Himself,  becomes  as  '  he  that 
serveth'  (Luke  22:  27). 

Ver.  5.  It  is  impossible  not  to  mark  the  minuteness  with  which 
each  separate  part  of  the  wonderful  work  of  condescension  he  would 
desci'ibe  is  here  recorded  by  the]Evangelist.  According  to  the  iLsages 
of  the  East,  rendered  necessary  at  once  by  the  dusty  nature  of  the 
roads,  and  the  imperfect  covering  afforded  by  sandals,  it  was  custom- 
ary for  the  master  of  a  house,  when  receiving  guests,  to  provide  them 
with  water  to  wash  their  feet  (Gen.  18:  4;  19:  2;  Judg.  19:  21; 
Luke  7 :  44).  The  act  of  washing  would  generally  be  performed  by 
servants.  Here  Jesus,  the  Master  of  the  feast,  becomes  Himself  the 
servant. 

Ver.  6.  He  cometh  therefore  to  Simon  Peter:  he  saith 
unto  Him,  Lord,  dost  thou  -wash  my  feet  ?  It  is  important  to 
mark  the  strong  emphasis  belonging  to  'thou  '  and  'my  :'  '  Lord,  dost 
thou  wash  my  feet?  There  may  be  hastiness  and  self-will  on  Peter's 
part,  but  surely  there  is  also  deep  reverence  for  his  Lord  and  a  spirit 
of  genuine  humility.  We  must  bear  in  mind  that  as  yet  he  looks  at 
the  matter  only  with  the  outward  eye,  and  that  he  can  hardly  be  ex- 
pected to  think  of  the  deeper  spiritual  significance  which  the  act 
possesses. 

Ver.  7.  The  Great  Teacher  now  takes  in  hand  the  task  of  instruct- 
ing the  warm-hearted  but  impulsive  disciple  in  the  true  nature  of  the 
act  performed  by  Him,  and  His  reference  to  the  future  prepares  the 
way  for  the  revelation  to  be  given.  '  Hereafter'  certainly  does  not 
refer  either  to  Pentecost  or  the  eternal  world.     The  remarkable  tran- 


13:8.]  JOHN  XIII.  291 

8  thou  shalt  understand  hereafter.  Peter  saith  unto 
him,  Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet.  Jesus  answered 
him,  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  with  me. 

sition  in  this  verse  from  '  knowest '  to  *  learn,'  and  the  fact  that  the 
last  of  these  two  words  is  again  taken  up  in  ver.  12  (where  we  trans- 
late perceive'),  afford  ground  for  the  supposition  that  the  'hereafter' 
spoken  of  begins  with  the  light  there  thrown  by  Jesus  Himself  upon 
what  He  does.  Even  then,  however,  it  can  hardly  be  confined  to  that 
moment.  It  is  in  the  trying  circumstances  of  the  future,  in  the  zeal- 
ous discharge  of  the  task  that  shall  be  his,  and  in  the  ripening  of 
Christian  experience,  that  Peter  shall  '  learn,'  shall  '  perceive  '  the 
full  meaning  of  what  he  at  present  feels  to  be  so  incomprehensible. 
He  will  not  only  fully  know  what  it  is  to  have  had  his  own  feet  washed 
by  Jesus,  until  he  shall  have  felt  the  need  of  constantly  turning  to 
Him  in  faith  ;  and  unal,  in  the  love  ever  renewed  in  the  exercise  of 
that  faith,  he  too  shall  have  washed  the  feet  of  others. 

Ver.  8.  Peter  is  too  much  amazed  to  comprehend  at  once  the  les- 
son of  the  precious  words  of  Jesuf.  He  does  not  even  heed  them  ; 
and  his  impulsiveness,  checked  for  a  moment,  leads  him  to  break 
over  the  barrier  that  has  been  opposed  to  it  with  greater  force  than 
before:  'Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet.' — Jesus  ansvvrered  him, 
etc.  Now,  our  Lord  begins  to  unfold  the  true  spiritual  meaning  of 
what  He  is  about  to  do.  We  must  carefully  mark  the  words, — first, 
the  word  'wash,'  not  'cleanse'  or  'bathe,'  referring  to  the  whole 
body,  but  simply  'wash,'  referring  to  the  act  which  Jesus  has  imme- 
diately in  hand, — the  washing  of  the  feet  alone  ;  secondly,  'with  me,' 
not  'in  me,'  referring,  not  to  the  entire  dependence  of  the  believer 
upon  his  Lord  and  his  completeness  in  Him,  but  to  his  share  along 
with  Him  in  a  work  of  self-sacrificing  love,  triumphant  over  the  world 
and  crowned  with  glory.  If  we  keep  these  two  points  in  view,  it  will 
be  at  once  seen  that  the  words  of  Jesus  before  us  have  little  reference 
to  any  mere  spirit  of  self-will,  for  which  Peter  must  substitute  the 
childlike  disposition  that  alone  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  also  that  they  relate  as  little  to  our  first  cleansing  from  sin  in  the 
atoning  blood  of  Christ.  They  refer  to  something  different  from 
either  of  these  two  great  truths,  and  express,  what  we  shall  have  to 
explain  more  fully  (on  ver.  20),  that  unless  Peter  enters  into  the 
spirit  of  that  self-sacrificing  work  of  love  which  Jesus  performs,  makes 
that  spirit  his  own  spirit,  sees  the  beauty  and  owns  the  glory  of  the 
Master's  becoming  the  servant  for  His  people's  sake  (comp.  Matt.  20: 
28;  Luke  22:  24-27),  and  becomes  in  like  manner  ready  to  sacrifice 
himself  if  he  may  thereby  help  the  humblest  member  of  the  flock  of 
Christ,  then  he  is  going  his  own  way,  not  the  way  of  Jesus;  he  is 
choosing  his  own  portion,  not  the  portion  of  his  Lord;  he  must  be 
content  to  separate  from  One  whom  he  loved  with  all  his  heart,  and 
to  have  no  more  a  part  with  Him  either  in  His  sufferings  or  His  re- 


292  JOHN  XIIL  [13:  9-11. 

9  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  not  my  feet  only, 

10  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head.  Jesus  !~aith  to  him 
He  that  is  bathed  needeth  not  ^save  to  wash  his  feet, 
but  is  clean  every  whit :  and  ye  are  clean,  but  not  all. 

11  For  he  knew  him  that  should  betray  him ;  therefore 
said  he,  Ye  are  not  all  clean. 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  omit  save  and  his  feet. 

ward.  It  is  this  thought,  even  though  it  may  be  as  yet  imperfectly 
apprehended  by  the  apostle,  that  leads  to  the  sudden  revulsion  of  feel- 
ing in  the  following  verse. 

Ver.  9.  Peter  sees  that  in  whatever  way  the  result  may  be  pro- 
duced, suffering  .Jesus  to  wash  his  feet  will  bring  him  nearer  to  his 
Master,  will  make  him  to  be  more  '  with  Him.'  The  thought  of  the 
hands  and  the  head  as  the  uncovered  parts  of  the  body  naturally 
occurs  to  him  ;  and  his  reasoning  is  that,  if  the  washing  of  one  part 
will  give  him  a  deeper  interest  in  the  Master  whom  he  loved,  much 
more  will  this  be  effected  by  the  washing  of  more  parts  than  one.  To 
everything  he  will  submit,  so  that  it  b^ing  him  nearer  to  Jesus  and 
his  reward. 

Ver.  10,  The  ground  of  the  figurative  language  hardly  needs  ex- 
planation :  he  who  has  just  been  cleansed  in  the  bath  has  only  further 
to  wash  his  feet  as  he  proceeds  from  the  bath  to  the  banquet  in  order 
that  he  may  sit  down  there  wholly  clean.  Peter's  words  had  shown 
that  he  did  not  fully  understand  the  application  of  the  figure,  and 
that  he  did  not  see  that  the  washing  of  more  than  the  feet,  which  had 
alone  been  in  a  position  to  contract  defilement,  implied  that  the  first 
cleansing  had  not  been  so  thorough  as  it  really  was.  It  was  necessary, 
therefore,  in  furtherance  of  his  training  at  this  time,  to  remind  him 
that  in  faith  and  love  he  had  already  been  made  completely  one  with 
Jesus,  and  that  all  now  required  was  not  an  entire  renewal  of  that 
first  cleansing,  as  if  men  were  to  be  born  a  third  time  as  well  as  a 
second  time,  but  a  preserving  of  it  in  its  completeness.  This  was  to 
be  effected  by  sufFeinng  Jesus  now  to  cleanse  away  any  stain  that 
could  be  imparted  by  the  work  of  the  world,  but  no  more.  A  right 
perception  of  the  greatness  of  what  Christ  did  for  us  when  He  first 
united  us  to  Himself,  is  as  necessary  to  a  true  following  of  His  exam- 
ple of  love  and  self-denial,  as  is  a  perception  of  the  fact  that,  at  every 
step  of  our  progress,  in  every  part  of  our  continued  work,  we  need  to 
turn  to  Him  for  the  spiritualizing  of  our  earthly  thoughts,  the  eleva- 
tion of  our  earthly  aims,  and  the  pardon  of  our  shortcomings  and  sins. 
Peter  and  the  apostles  ought  not  to  forget  this.  They  had  all  been 
truly  united  to  Jesus  except  one  ;  and  there  is  sadness  in  the  way  in 
which  the  words  are  added,  '  but  not  all.' 

Ver.  11.  For  he  knew  him  that  -was  betraying  him ;  there- 
fore said  he,  Ye   are  not  all   clean.      What  a  contrast  to  the 


13:  12-15.]  JOHN  XIII.  293 

12  So  when   he   had  washed  their  feet,  and  taken  his 
garments,  and  ^sat  down    again,  he   said  unto  them, 

13  Know  ye   what  I  have  done  to  you  ?     Ye  call  me 
^Master,  and,  Lord  :  and  ye   say  well  ;    for  so  I  am. 

14  If  I  then,  the   Lord  and   the  -^Master,  have  washed 
your  feet,  ye  also  ought  to  wash  one  another's  feet. 

15  For  I  have  given  you  an  exam23le,  that  ye  also  should 

1  Gr.  reclined.  2  Or,   Teacher. 

eleven  do  these  words  present :  they,  full  of  faith  and  love,  '  clean  ;' 
Judas  -with  his  heart  full  of  evil  passions,  at  that  very  moment  his 
treachery  not  a  thing  of  the  future,  but  of  the  present.  And  yet 
more  !  Jesus  knew  this.  The  eye  that  sees  what  is  in  man,  saw  what 
was  in  the  heart  of  the  traitor  while  he  yet  washed  his  feet.  It  may 
be  asked,  What  is  the  import  of  the  foot-washing  in  such  a  case  ?  We 
can  only  answer,  It  is  nothing  but  an  outward  rite.  The  complete 
bath  must  have  been  accepted,  before  the  subsequent  washing  of  the 
feet  can  bring  its  blessing  to  us,  or  be  other  than  a  carnal  form. 

Ver.  12.  When  therefore  he  had  washed  their  feet,  and 
taken  his  garments,  and  had  sat  doTvn  again,  he  said  unto 
them,  Perceive  ye  vrhat  I  have  done  to  you  ?  Again  three 
particulars  introduce  the  words  of  Jesus  ;  and  the  frequent  recur- 
rence of  this  structure  throughout  these  verses  harmonizes  well  with 
the  touching  solemnity  of  the  whole  scene.  Having  washed  the  feet 
of  the  disciples,  resumed  His  garments,  and  again  taken  His  place  at 
the  table,  Jesus  proceeded  to  enforce  the  lesson  of  what  He  had  done. 
He  first  awaken^  their  attention  by  His  question,  and  then  proceeds. 

Ver,  13.  Ye  call  me  Master  and  Lord:  and  ye  say  well: 
for  so  I  am.  It  was  in  the  full  consciousness  of  the  dignity  belong- 
ing to  Him  (ver.  3)  that  Jesus  had  entered  upon  this  scene.  It  ia  in 
a  similar  consciousness  that  He  now  urges  its  lesson.  The  word  used 
for  'Master'  is  John's  Greek  rendering  for  the  Hebrew  'Rabbi' 
(chap.  1 :  29  ;  20: 16).  No  special  meaning  therefore,  such  as  'Teacher/ 
is  to  be  given  it. 

Ver.  14.  If  I  therefore,  etc.  The  order  of  the  titles  which 
Jesus  assumes  to  Himself  is  changed  in  this  as  compared  with  the  pre- 
ceding verse.  The  object  appears  to  be  to  give  prominence  to  that 
title  of  'Lord  '  in  the  thought  of  which  lay  the  strength  of  the  obliga- 
tion resting  upon  His  disciples  to  do  as  He  has  done.  They,  then, 
were  to  wash  one  another's  feet  when  He  would  no  longer  be  beside 
them  to  do  so ;  they  could  not  bathe  one  another,  make  one  another 
'  clean  ;'  but  this  they  could  do  in  self-denying  love  and  fellowship, — 
they  could  restore  one  another's  failing  faith  and  love  by  ever-renewed 
manifestations  of  that  love  to  one  another  which,  springing  from  the 
love  of  Jesus,  leads  back  to  Him. 

Ver.  15.     For  I  gave  you  an  example,  that  ye  also  should 


294  JOHN  XIII.  [13:  16-18. 

16  do  as  I  have  done  to  you.      Yerily,  verily,  I  say  unto 
you,  A  ^servant  is  not  greater  than  his  lord ;  neither 

17  ^one  that  is  sent  greater  than  he  that  sent  him.     If  ye 
know    these   things,  blessed  are   ye  if  ye   do  them. 

18  I  speak  not  of  you  all :  I  know  whom  I  ^liave  chosen  : 
but  that  the  scripture  may  be  fulfilled,  He  that  eateth 

1  Gr.  bond-servatit.  2  Qr.  an  apostle.  '  Or,  chose. 

do  even  as  I  did  to  you.  "What,  the  giver  of  a  commission  does 
may  well  be  done  by  the  servant  to  whom  the  commission  is  given.  It 
is  important  to  observe  that  the  act  spoken  of  is  only  that  of  '  washing 
one  another's  feet.' 

Ver.  16.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  No  servant  is 
greater  than  his  lord;  neither  one  that  is  sent  greater 
than  he  that  sent  him.  How  often  Jesus  speaks  of  Himself  in 
this  gospel  as  the  Sent'  of  God  !  It  is  impossible  to  dissociate  this 
usace  from  the  words  here,  so  that  the  same  word  is  applied  to  the  dis- 
ciple in  reference  to  his  Lord  as  is  applied  to  the  Lord  Himself  in  ref- 
erence to  God  (comp.  17:  18).  The  disciples  are  the  'sent,'  taking 
the  place  of  Him  who  was  first  '  sent'  but  is  now  gone  to  the  Father. 

Ver.  17.  If  ye  know  these  things,  happy  are  ye  if  ye  do 
them.  Simple  as  might  appear  the  duty  to  which  the  disciples  were 
called,  Jesus  knew  that  it  was  a  hard  and  trying  task.  He  connects 
therefore  a  promise  of  blessedness  with  the  actual  performance  of  the 
duty. 

Ver.  18.  I  speak  not  of  you  all.  At  this  point  Jesus  again 
turns  to  the  thought  of  Judas,  yet  not  with  the  view  of  simply  repeat- 
ing what  He  he  had  said  at  ver.  10.  It  is  contemplation  of  the  bles- 
sedness first  spoken  of  that  fills  His  mind,  and  pity  for  that  disciple 
who  was  not  only  to  separate  himself  from  the  others,  but,  in  doing  so, 
to  lose  their  blessedness.— I  know  whom  I  chose.  The  choosing 
refers  to  election  to  the  apostleship,  not  to  eternal  life  (comp.  6  :  70; 
1^:  16,  19).  The  precise  object  of  the  statement  is  more  difficult  to 
determine.  The  most  probable  explanation  seems  to  be  that  our  Lord 
would  anticipate  what  could  not  fail  to  be  afterwards  a  source  of  per- 
plexity to  the  disciples.  It  will  seem  strange  to  them  that  a  traitor 
should  have  been  chosen  to  be  one  of  their  number ;  and  they  may 
even  be  tempted  to  think  that,  had  Jesus  known  what  He  was  doing, 
no  such  choice  would  have  been  made.  Therefore,  with  much  empha- 
sis on  the  '  I,'  he  says,  '  I  know  whom  I  chose.  You  may  imagine  that 
I  have  been  deceived,  but  it  is  not  so  ;  I  knew  well  what  was  to  hap- 
pen, and  that  it  was  a  part  of  the  purposes  of  God,' — but,  that  the 
scriptures  may  be  fulfilled.  He  that  eateth  my  bread 
lifted  up  his  heel  against  me.  The  words  are  from  Ps.  41 :  9. 
As  originally  used  they  refer  to  the  suffering  righteous  man,  but  the 
Psalmfst  is  led  to  employ  words  which  have  their  full  meaning  only  as 


13:  19,20.]  JOHN  XIII.  295 

19  ^my  bread  lifted  up  his  heel  against  me.  From  hence- 
forth. I  tell  you  before  it  come  to  pass,  that,  when 
it   is  come  to   pass,  ye  may  believe  that   ^I  am  he, 

20  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  receiveth 
whomsoever  I  send  receiveth  me ;  and  he  that  re- 
ceiveth me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me. 

1  Many  authorities  read  his  bread  with  me.  2  Or,  I  am. 

applied  to  the  ideal  righteous  one,  that  is,  to  Jesus ;  and  Jesus  now 
speaks  them  directly  in  His  own  person.  As  found  here  they  are  not 
a  reproduction  of  the  Septuagint,  but  are  an  original  translation  of 
the  Hebrew.  The  figure  raay  be  taken  from  the  tripping  up  of  a  run- 
ner in  a  race,  or  from  the  thought  of  kicking.  The  latter  allusion  is 
the  more  probable.  The  peculiar  offensiveness  of  the  conduct  spoken 
of  lies  in  the  feet  that  the  person  guilty  of  it  has  '  eaten  the  bread'  of 
him  whom  he  injures,  and  has  thus  violated  those  laws  of  hospitality 
and  friendship  than  which  the  East  knew  none  more  sacred. 

Ver.  19.  These  words  can  hardly  mean  that  Jesus  would  hence- 
forward tell  them  events  that  were  to  happen  in  order  that,  when  the 
events  did  happen,  they  might  see  that  He  had  been  a  true  prophet 
and  might  have  their  faith  confirmed.  He  is  here  dealing  with  them 
as  with  persons  who  are  to  be  sent  forth  to  do  His  work  in  the  world ; 
and  it  is  as  if  He  would  say,  '  Because  the  moment  of  your  work  is 
come  I  put  you  in  possession  of  what  is  to  happen,  I  make  you  antici- 
pate and  foresee  it,  I  give  you  the  same  knowledge  of  it  that  I  have 
myself,  in  order  that,  when  suffering  comes,  you  may  not  lose  faith  by 
the  shock,  but  may  be  strengthened  in  your  progress  towards  a  deeper 
and  truer  faith.  My  ever  present  knowledge  corresponds  to  my  ever 
present  Divine  existence,  to  the  fact  that  I  am  (comp.  on  8:  24).  Your 
knowledge  shall  be  to  you  a  proof  that  it  is  indeed  One  who  can  say 
"  I  am"  that  is  in  you.'  It  is  not  so  much  of  faith  in  Him  as  the 
Messiah  that  Jesus  speaks  :  it  is  of  faith  in  the  Divine  in  Him,  be- 
stowed through  Him  upon  themselves. 

Ver.  20.  The  difficulty  of  tracing  the  connection  of  these  words 
with  the  rest  of  our  Lord's  discourse  at  this  time  has  been  felt  by  all 
commentators.  Let  us  observe  that  they  are  introduced  by  '  Verily, 
verily,'  and  that  we  are  thus  taken  back  to  ver.  16  with  the  expecta- 
tion that  the  thought  here  will  closely  correspond,  although  in  a  deep- 
ened form,  to  the  thought  there.  There,  however,  the  distinct  refer- 
ence had  been  to  that  work  of  lowly  love  which  '  in  the  form  of  a 
servant'  Jesus  had  just  performed  for  His  disciples.  What,  there- 
fore. He  had  done  for  them,  they  are  now  to  do  for  one  another,  and 
for  the  world.  Laying  aside  all  thought  of  earthly  pre-eminence, 
seeking  only  the  glory  of  God  and  not  their  own,  they  are  to  go  out, 
like  their  Master,  '  in  the  form  of  a  servant,'  and  in  a  spirit  of  self- 


296  JOHN  XIII.  [13: 20. 

sacrificing  love  like  His  to  be  His  representatives  to  men.  As  they  do  so, 
they  will  experience  the  same  reception  as  He  had  done.  Some  will 
'receive'  them, — that  is,  will  not  merely  view  with  favor  their  gen- 
eral work,  but  will  accept  them  when  they  come,  and  because  they 
come,  to  them  in  the  same  spirit  as  that  which  Jesus  had  displayed  in 
the  act  which  He  had  just  performed  towards  them.  Others,  it  is  im- 
plied, will  reject  them  ;  will  accept  indeed  the  outward  service,  the 
external  rite;  but  yielding  to  the  evil  suggestions  of  Satan,  and  so 
proving  themselves  his  children  instead  of  the  children  of  God,  will 
cast  away  from  them  the  precious  truth  of  which  the  service  and  the 
rite  were  only  the  symbolical  expression.  Men  will  thus  divide  them- 
selves into  two  classes  which  will  take  up  towards  the  apostles  doing 
the  work  of  Jesus  the  same  position  as  that  which  the  eleven  on  the  one 
hand,  and  Judas  on  the  other,  had  now  taken  up  towards  Jesus  Him- 
self. It  is  important  to  keep  this  thought  of  Judas  as  well  as  of  the 
others  prominently  in  view  in  the  verses  before  us.  Just  as  vers.  1 
and  3  constitute  a  parallel  to  ver.  19,  and  there  is  One  behind  Jesus 
who  is  received  when  Jesus  is  received  (ver.  20),  so  ver.  2  constitutes 
a  parallel  to  the  implied  thought  of  Judas,  and  there  is  one  behind 
the  traitor  whose  children  the  rejectors  of  Jesus,  as  he  acts  in  the 
apostles,  show  themselves  to  be.  Nor  is  this  all ;  for,  while  the  thought 
of  which  we  speak  binds  the  whole  passage,  vers.  1-20,  into  one,  it 
also  explains  the  apparently  sudden  transition  to  the  powerful  emo- 
tions stirred  in  the  Redeemer's  breast  by  the  thought  of  Judas  at  ver. 
21,  as  well  as  the  Emphatic  'Now'  of  ver.  31, — now,  when  the  last 
who  would  resist  that  true  glory  which  consists  in  self-sacrificing  love 
has  been  expelled.  The  last  clause  of  ver.  20  is  explained  by 
chap.  1 :  12. 

It  is  desirable  to  pause  here  for  a  moment,  and  to  ask  as  to  the  real  meaning  of  the 
wonderful  scene,  the  details  of  which  we  have  been  considering.  It  is  not  a  mere 
lesson  of  hiimilitj'.  The  lesson  is  far  deeper.  It  is  the  completing  act  of  that  great 
work  of  self-sacrificing  love  in  which  Jesus  was  engaged.  He  even  includes  in  the 
thought  of  it  the  thought  of  tli*  crucifixion  now  so  near  ;  and,  as  then  He  shall  de- 
part unto  the  Father,  He  affords  now  the  most  touching,  the  culminating  illustration 
of  the  fact  that '  the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister.' 
That  is  the  very  essence  of  His  glory,  a  glory  so  different  from  the  world,  so  different 
even  from  that  upon  which  the  thoughts  of  His  disciples  were  yet  fixed.  Therefore 
He  humbles  Himself  anew.  Laying  aside  His  glory  He  takes  up  His  cross,  not  that 
He  may  justify  disciples  who  are  already  His,  who  are  '  clean,' but  that  He  may  bring 
them  ever  and  again  to  Himself  the  source  of  all  spiritual  nourishment,  and  may 
wash  away  any  fresh  stains  of  defilement  which  they  have  contracted  in  their  work 
in  the  world.  That  is  His  part.  "\Miat  is  ours?  It  springs  from  the  consideration  that, 
exalted  in  glory,  He  really  labors  and  suffers  no  more.  His  disciples  take  His  place 
and  carry  on  His  work,  constantly  leading  one  another  back  to  Him,  and  washing 
away  those  weaknesses  of  faith,  those  defects  of  love,  which  their  work  in  the  world 
brings  with  it.  Thus  they  '  fill  up  what  is  beliind  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ  for  His 
body's  sake,  which  is  the  Church '  (Col.  1 :  24) ;  and  it  is  thus  only  that,  suffering 
with  Him,  they  shall  at  last  be  glorified  with  Him'  (ver.  8)  in  His  glory. 


13:  21,22.]  JOHN  XIII.  297 

Chapter  13:  21-30. 
The  Expulsion  of  Judas  Iscariot. 

21  When  Jesus  had  thus  said,  he  was  troubled  in  the 
spirit,  and  testified,  and  said,  Verily,  verily,  I  say 

22  unto  you,  that  one  of  you  shall  betray  me.     The  dis- 
ciples looked  one  on  another,  doubting  of  whom  he 

ITie  Expulsion  of  Judas  Iscariot,  vers.  21—30. 

Contents. — The  leading  idea  of  this  section  is  the  expulsion  of  Judas  from  the 
company  of  the  disciples.  We  have  already  seen  that  before  the  chapter  begins  the 
world  is  shut  out,  and  Jesus  is  to  be  alone  with  '  His  own.'  But  Judas  is  of  the  world, 
the  last  remnant  of  it  left  in  the  apostolic  company,  the  last  particle,  as  it  were,  of 
the  leaven  that  had  to  be  removed  with  such  scrupulous  care  from  every  Jewish 
house  before  the  feast  of  the  Passover.  Before  the  true  Christian  Passover  then  can 
be  celebrated,  Judas  must  withdraw.  Then  only  will  the  house  be  clean,  the  air  be 
pure ;  and  with  no  jarring  element  in  their  midst,  Jesus  will  be  able  to  pour  forth 
all  the  fulness  of  His  love  towards  those  who  are  bound  up  with  Him  in  the  closest 
and  most  sacred  fellowship. 

Ver.  21.  "When  Jesus  had  thus  said,  he  was  troubled  in 
spirit,  and  bare  -witness,  and  said,  Verily,  verily,  etc.  All 
the  expressions  of  the  verse  indicate  how  deeply  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
was  moved,  the  'troubled  in  spirit,'  the  'bare  witness,'  the  'Verily, 
verily.'  Compassion,  however,  is  not  the  leading  feature  of  His  mind 
at  present.  It  is  rather  horror  and  indignation  at  the  thought  that 
over  against  His  glorious  mission  of  love  to  the  world,  there  should 
now  appear  in  their  utmost  intensity  the  worldliness,  the  selfishness, 
and  the  sin  that  would  fain  defeat  it  all.  Therefore  He  was  '  troubled' 
(comp.  on  11:  33;  12:  27),  and  troubled  'in  spirit,'  in  the  highest 
region  of  the  spiritual  life.  Therefore  He  'bare  witness:'  not  simply 
were  His  words  plain,  as  compared  with  His  previously  obscure  inti- 
mations of  the  approaching  treachery  (vers.  10,  18),  but  He  was  now 
delivering  a  part  of  that  mystery  of  the  will  of  His  Father  which  it 
was  His  mission  to  proclaim,  and  which  announced  the  thickness  of 
Satanic  darkness  no  less  than  the  brightness  of  heavenly  light.  And 
therefore  also  He  said  :  '  Verily,  verily ;'  so  solemn,  so  awful,  so  full 
of  deep  and  far-reaching  meaning,  was  the  fact  about  to  be  realized. 
The  same  three-fold  statement  shows  the  greatness  of  the  impression 
made  upon  the  mind  of  the  Evangelist. — I  say  unto  you,  That 
one  of  you  shall  betray  me  ;  sad,  painful  words,  but  as  yet  not 
understood  by  the  disciples. 

Ver.  22.  The  disciples  looked  one  on  another,  in  per- 
plexity of  -whom  he  spake.  From  the  parallel  passages  of  the 
earlier  Gospels  (Matt.  26:  22,  etc.;  Mark  14:  19;  Luke  22:  23)  we 


298  JOHN  XIII.  [13:  23-26. 


23  spake.     There  was   at  the  table  reclining  in  Jesus' 

24  bosom  one  of  his  disciples,  whom  Jesus  loved.  Simon 
Peter  therefore  beckoneth  to  him,  and  saith  unto  him, 

25  Tell  us  who  it  is  of  whom  he  speaketh.  He  leaning 
back,  as  he  was,  on  Jesus^   breast  saith  unto  him, 

26  Lord,  who  is  it?  Jesus  therefore  answereth.  He  it 
is,  for  whom  I  shall  dip  the  sop,  and  give  it  him. 
So  when  he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he  taketh  and  giveth 

learn  that  they  expressed  to  one  another  in  words.  To  John,  hasten- 
ing always  to  the  main  figure  of  the  scene,  it  is  enough  to  speak  of 
their  looks. 

Ver.  23.  There  was  reclining  at  meat  in  Jesus'  bosom 
one  of  his  disciples.  It  had  been  originally  enjoined  that  the 
Passover  should  be  eaten  standing  (Ex.  12  :  11) ;  but  after  the  return 
from  the  captivity,  the  custom  had  been  changed :  the  guests  now 
reclined  upon  couches.  The  reason  for  the  original  injunction  no 
longer  existing,  it  had  been  permitted  to  fall  aside;  and  our  Lord 
recognized  the  propriety  of  the  change.  At  this  moment,  indeed,  the 
feast,  properly  so  called,  had  not  yet  begun ;  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  the  attitude  of  reclining  would  not  be  changed  when  it 
did  so. — Whom  Jesus  loved.  The  universal  tradition  of  the 
Church,  as  Avell  as  the  information  afforded  by  the  gospel  itself,  leave 
no  doubt  that  this  disciple  was  John  himself. 

Ver.  24.  Peter,  as  usual  the  first  to  act,  is  the  spokesman  of  the 
rest.  Nothing  is  said  to  explain  why  either  he  or  any  other  of  the 
apostolic  band  should  have  supposed  that  John  would  know  what  they 
themselves  were  ignorant  of.  It  may  have  ai^isen  simply  from  their 
having  witnessed  many  tokens  of  love  and  confidence  on  the  part  of 
Jesus  towards  him. 

Ver.  25.  He  leaning  back  thus  on  Jesus'  breast,  saith 
Qnto  him,  Lord,  who  is  it  ?  Nothing  can  be  more  graphic  than 
the  account  here  given  of  the  movement  made  by  John.  He  had  been 
reclining  on  the  bosom  of  Jesus ;  he  now  throws  back  his  head  upon 
His  breast,  looking  up  into  His  face  that  he  may  ask  his  question. 
It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  little  act  is  fixed  on  by  the  beloved 
disciple  in  21  :  20  to  characterize  himself:  not  'who  also  leaned,'  but 
'who  also  leaned  back  on  his  breast'  at  the  supper.  Perhaps,  too,  we 
may  justly  infer  that  the  question  was  neither  asked  nor  answered  in 
undertones,  but  that  all  could  hear. 

Ver.  26.  Jesus  therefore  answereth,  He  it  is  for  whom  I 
shall  dip  the  sop,  and  shall  give  it  to  him.  The  use  of  the 
definite  article  with  the  word  'sop'  can  leave  no  doubt  upon  our 
minds  tliat  it  is  the  well  known  sop  of  the  Paschal  Supper.  The 
sauce  in  which  it  was  dipped  does  not  belong  to  the  original  institu- 


13 :  27,  28.]  JOHN  XIIL  299 

27  it  to  Judas,  the  son  of  Simon  Iscariot.     And  after  the 
sop,  then  entered   Satan   into   him.     Jesus  therefore 

28  saith  unto  him.  That  thou  doest,  do  quickly.     Now 

tion,  but  had  been  introduced  before  the  days  of  Christ,  and  was  par- 
taken of  before  the  Limb  was  placed  upon  the  table.  At  this  point 
then  we  are  at  the  beginning  of  tbe  '  feast.'  Two  important  questions 
meet  us:  In  what  spirit  is  the  sop  offered?  Does  Judas  partake  of  it? 
As  to  the  first  of  these,  it  was  certainly  more  than  a  sign  to  point  out 
Judas  as  the  traitor.  This  particular  sign  is  chosen  in  order  even  at 
the  last  moment  to  touch  his  heart.  For  this  purpose  Jesus  departs 
from  the  ordinary  custom  at  the  feast,  at  which  each  guest  dipped  his 
own  bread  in  the  bitter  sauce,  and  off'ers  Judas  a  piece  which  He 
Himself  had  dipped.  It  was  as  if  He  would  say:  'Thou  art  at  my 
table,  thou  art  my  guest,  I  would  fain  have  thee  to  be  my  friend ; 
canst  thou  violate  every  rule  of  love  and  friendship?'  The  giving  of 
the  sop  then  is  more  than  an  index  to  the  traitor.  It  is  a  final  appeal 
to  Judas  which  may  yet  soften  his  heart,  but  which,  if  it  do  not 
soften  him,  will  only  make  him  more  hardened  than  before.  The 
second  question,  Does  Judas  partake  of  the  feast?  is  not  distinctly 
answered  by  the  Evangelist.  We  must  probably  answer  in  the  nega- 
tive, because— (1)  The  'feast'  was  only  now  beginning,  (2)  The 
drift  of  the  passage,  and  indeed  of  the  whole  of  this  section  of  the 
Gospel,  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  he  did  not.  This  view  seems  also 
to  find  confirmation  from  the  words  of  1  John  2:  19,  which  appear  to 
take  their  form  from  the  memory  of  the  scene  before  us.  Thus  looked 
at,  the  going  out  of  Judas  is  the  token  that  he  did  not  belong  to  the 
number  of  the  disciples,  and  that  he  could  not  share  in  that  expres- 
sion of  communion  with  Jesus  now  to  be  enjoyed. — When  there- 
fore he  had  dipped  the  sop,  he  taketh  and  giveth  it  to 
Judas  the  son  of  Simon  Iscariot.  For  the  name  Simon  Isca- 
riot, comp.  G:  71.  That  the  name  Iscariot  belongs  to  the  father  as 
well  as  the  son,  confirms  the  idea  that  the  meaning  is  the  '  Man  of  Ke- 
rioth'  (Josh.  15:  25). 

Ver.  27.  And  after  the  sop  then  Satan  entered  into  him. 
After  the  sop  had  been  given,  Satan  took  such  full  possession  of  the 
traitor,  that  he  is  no  longer  only  .Judas,  but  one  possessed  by  Satan. 
— Jesus  therefore  saith  unto  him,  That  thou  doest,  do  more 
quickly.  Judas  may  now  be  addressed  as  'doing'  what  he  was  to 
do.  It  was  too  late  to  expect  any  change.  Mercy,  grace,  off"ered  to 
the  last,  have  been  to  the  last  rejected.  The  sin  must  be  committed 
now.  Let  him  therefore  not  stay,  as  in  all  probability  he  would  have 
wished  to  partake  of  the  feast;  let  him  be  even  more  active  than  he  is 
inclined  to  be;  Jesus  not  only  desires  to  be  alone  with  His  true  dis- 
ciples, but  He  is  eager  to  take  that  last  step  which  is  now  at  hand ;  He 
is  'straitened'  until  His  'baptism  is  accomplished'  (Luke  12:  50). 

Ver.  28.     No  one  of  those  reclining  at  meat  perceived  for 


300  JOHN  XIII.  [13 :  29,  30. 

no  man  at  the  table  knew  for  what  intent  he  spake 

29  this  unto  him.    For  some  thought,  because  Judas  had 

the  ^  bag,  that  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Buy  what  things 

we  have  need  of  for  the  feast ;  or,  that  he  should  give 

1  Or,  box. 

■what  intent  he  said  it  unto  him.  From  these  words  the  infer- 
ence is  generally  drawn  that  the  conversation  between  Jesus  and  John 
must  have  been  in  an  undertone ;  otherwise  the  disciples  would  have 
known  the  meaning  of  what  had  been  said.  The  inference  is  hardly 
warranted.  Even  although  they  now  knew  that  he  was  to  betray  his 
Master,  they  might  be  so  ignorant  of  all  the  steps  he  was  to  take  for 
that  end,  that  they  could  not  attach  a  correct  idea  to  the  words  ad- 
dressed to  him.     And  they  did  not. 

Ver.  29.  On  the  'bag'  here  spoken  of,  see  on  12:  6.  The  first 
supposition  made,  that  Judas  might  have  gone  out  to  purchase  things 
needed  'for  the  feast,'  is  a  proof  that  the  feast  itself  had  not  begun, 
or  was  only  beginning.  It  is  important  to  observe  the  word  *  feast.' 
It  is  that  of  ver.  1,  and  it  shows  that  the  disciples  expected  to  partake 
of  the  Paschal  Supper  with  Jesus.  This  expectation  the  Evangelist 
would  in  all  probability  not  have  communicated  to  us  as  he  has  done 
had  he  not  known  it  to  be  correct.  He  knows  that  Jesus  partook  of 
'the  feast;'  that  what  He  did  not  partake  of  was  the  'Passover  of  the 
Jews'  (comp.  on  ver.  1).  The  words,  too,  are  much  more  reconcila- 
ble with  the  idea  that  the  feast  was  just  about  to  be  partaken  of,  than 
that  it  was  to  be  eaten  twenty-four  hours  afterwards.  On  the  latter 
supposition,  the  'more  quickly'  loses  all  its  meaning.  On  the  former 
retains  its  force.  The  expression  here  employed  supplies  therefore  a 
powerful  argument  for  the  supposition  that  the  evening  on  which 
Jesus  and  His  disciples  were  thus  gathered  together  was  that  of  the 
Paschal  Supper.  It  has  indeed  been  urged  that,  if  the  Supper  took 
place  on  the  evening  of  the  14th, — according  to  saered  calculation, 
the  beginning  of  the  15th, — such  purchases  would  have  been  illegal 
and  impossible,  the  15th  possessing  all  the  sanctity  of  a  Sabbath. 
This,  however,  is  hardly  a  fair  representation  of  the  case.  There  are 
clear  indications  both  in  Scripture  (Ex.  12:  16:  Lev.  23:  7;  Luke 
23:  56)  and  in  the  Mishna,  that  a  difference  was  made  between  these 
two  days  in  respect  of  sanctity,  the  preparation  of  food,  for  example, 
being  expressly  allowed  on  the  latter  of  the  two.  A  rabbinical  pro- 
vision, also,  for  the  procuring  of  the  Paschal  lamb  when  the  eve  of  the 
Passover  fell  on  the  Sabbath,  is  a  proof  that  no  difl&culty  was  expe- 
rienced on  the  point  when  the  two  days  did  not  coincide  (Mishna, 
treatise  Sabbath).  The  j^econd  supposition  of  the  disciples  points  to 
the  same  conclusion.  They  thought  that  Judas  was  to  give  something 
to  the  poor ;  and  that  it  was  to  be  given  '  more  quickly.'  This  could 
hardly  be  mere  general  charity  to  the  poor.  The  time  was  not  very 
suitable  for  the  exercise  of  such  charity,  and  there  could  be  no  call 


13:30.]  JOHN  XIII.  301 

30  something  to  the  poor.     He  then  having  received  the 
sop  went  out  straightway:  and  it  was  night. 

for  its  being  given  at  once.  We  are  compelled  therefore  to  think  not 
of  charity  in  general,  but  of  that  peculiar  aid  which,  in  conformity 
with  the  law  (Deut.  16:  14),  was  to  be  given  at  the  Passover  to  'the 
stranger,  and  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow,'  to  enable  them  also  to 
rejoice.  Such  an  interpretation  of  the  words  of  Jesus  on  the  part  of 
the  disciples  corresponds  much  better  with  the  supposition  that  the 
feast  was  about  at  this  moment  to  be  celebrated  than  that  it  was  to  be 
so  the  following  night. 

Yer.  30.  He  therefore  having  received  the  sop  went  im- 
mediately out.  Again  nothing  is  said  of  the  sop's  being  eaten. — 
And  it  "Was  night.  It  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  symbolic  mean- 
ing of  these  words,  which  thus  becomes  important  as  illustrating  the 
general  character  of  the  thought  and  style  of  the  Evangelist.  They 
illustrate,  no  doubt,  the  minute  accuracy  of  the  narrative,  and  the  fact 
that  it  is  that  of  an  eye-witness,  upon  whose  memory  the  events  wit- 
nessed by  him  had  made  a  profound  impression.  But  they  certainly 
do  more.  In  the  darkness  of  the  night  in  which  Judas  went  out  the 
Evangelist  sees  the  symbol  of  the  darkness  of  his  deed  of  treachery. 

[Dr.  Westcott  on  the  choice  of  Judas  (Com.  on  John,  p.  199) :  "  There  are  two 
groups  of  explanations  of  the  choice  of  Judaa.  The  first  group  regards  the  choice 
from  the  side  of  the  divine  counsel ;  the  second  from  the  side  of  the  human  call. 

"  1.  It  is  said  he  was  chosen  in  obedience  to  God's  will  in  order  that  he  might  be- 
tray Christ ;  or,  to  represent  the  same  conception  from  another  point  of  view,  in  order 
that  the  redemption  might  be  accomplished  through  his  act. 

"  2.  It  is  said  again  by  some  that  Christ  in  making  His  choice  of  Judas  did  not  read 
the  inmost  depths  and  issues  of  his  character ;  and  by  others  that  seeing  all  distinctly 
even  to  the  end  He  kept  him  near  to  Himself  as  one  trusted  equally  with  the  others 
of  the  twelve. 

"  Both  these  forms  of  explanation  involve  partial  solutions  of  infinite  problems. 

"  The  question  raised  by  the  second  group  leads  us  at  once  to  the  final  mystery  of 
divine  Providence.  This,  as  far  as  we  can  represent  it  to  ourselves,  deals  with  general 
results  and  not  with  individual  wills. 

"  The  question  raised  by  the  second  group  leads  us  at  once  to  the  final  mystery  of 
the  union  of  perfect  divinity  and  humanity  in  the  One  Person  of  the  Lord.  And 
here  the  records  of  the  Gospel  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  Lord  had  perfect  human 
knowledge  realized  in  a  human  way,  and  therefore  limited  in  some  sense,  and  separable 
in  consciousness  from  His  perfect  divine  omniscience.  He  knew  the  thoughts  of  men 
absolutely  in  their  manifold  possibilities,  and  yet,  as  man,  not  in  their  actual  future 
manifestations. 

"  These  two  final  mysteries  are  not  created  by  the  fact  that  Judas  was  chosen  by 
Christ  among  the  twelve.  They  really  underlie  all  religious  life,  and  indeed  all  finite 
life.  For  finite  being  includes  the  possibility  of  sin,  and  the  possibility  of  fellowship 
between  the  creator  and  the  creature. 

"  Thus  we  may  be  content  to  have  this  concrete  mystery  as  an  example — the  most 
terrible  example — of  the  issues  of  the  two  fuudameutal  mysteries  of  human  cxist- 
euce."— P.  S.] 


302  JOHN  XIII.  [13:  31. 

Chapter  13:  31—14:  31. 

Jesus,  alone  with  His  Disciples,  begins  His  Last  Consola- 
tory Discourse. 

31      When  therefore  he  was  gone  out,  Jesus  saith,  Now 

Jesus,  alone  with  His  Disciples,  begins  His  Last  Consolatory  Discourse, 
vers.  31;  14:  31. 

Contents. — Judas  has  now  gone  out ;  Jesus  is  alone  with  the  dsiciples  whom  He  loved ; 
and  the  last  disturbing  element  has  been  removed  from  the  midst  of  the  little  com- 
pany. But  tho  hour  is  come  when  the  servants  must  be  left  without  the  immediate 
presence  of  their  Master,  and  when  they  are  to  take  that  place,  amidst  the  trials  of 
the  world,  which  He  was  about  to  leave  for  the  immediate  presence  of  the  Father.  It 
is  the  moment,  therefore,  for  the  Redeemer  to  pour  forth  all  the  inmost  feelings  of  His 
soul  on  their  behalf;  and  He  does  this  in  the  discourse  extending  to  the  close  of  chap. 
16,  and  in  the  intercessory  prayer  of  chap.  17.  We  shall  mistake  the  object  of  these 
chai)ters,  however,  if  we  suppose  that  they  are  intended  mainly  to  console  :  they  are 
still  more  to  instruct  and  train  those  by  whom  the  work  of  Christ  in  the  world  is  to  be 
carried  on.  The  subordinate  parts  of  the  section  before  us  are — (1)  chap.  13 :  31-35  ; 
(2)  vers.  36-38 ;  (3)  chap.  14 :  1-4 ;  (4;  vers.  5-7 ;  (5)  vers.  8-11 ;  (6)  vers.  12-21 ;  (7) 
vers.  22-24 ;  (8)  vers.  25-31. 

[We  enter  here  upon  the  Holy  of  the  holies  of  the  Gospel  history.  The  farewell 
discourses  of  our  Lord,  chap.  13  :  31  to  17  :  26  are  unique  even  in  this  unique  Gospel 
of  John  who  was  nearest  the  heart  of  Jesus  and  best  qualified  to  drink  in  those  words 
of  instruction  and  comfort  before  the  great  sacrifice  on  the  cross.  Lange  calls  them 
"  the  most  mysterious  and  the  most  holy  of  all  the  sayings  of  Christ,  and  a  spiritual 
ante-celebration  of  His  own  glorification  and  that  of  His  people  in  the  Hew  celestial 
life  opened  up  by  His  death  and  resurrection."  The  parting  song  and  blessing  of 
Moses  (Deut  chaps.  32  and  33),  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  Isaiah,  the  evangelist  of  the 
prophets,  and  the  farewell  address  of  Paul  to  the  Ephesian  elders  (Acts.  20 :  17-36) 
bear  a  remote  resemblance.  We  may  also  compare  these  last  discourses  in  John  to  the 
Lord's  eschatological  discourses  in  the  Synoptists  (Matt.  chap.  24 ;  Mark  chap.  13 ; 
Luke  chap.  21) :  in  John  the  Lord  revealed  the  inner  consummation  of  His  work  and 
the  spiritual  revolution  to  be  accomplished  ;  in  the  Synoptists  he  prophesied  the  over- 
throw of  the  theocracy  and  the  outward  establishment  of  His  kingdom.  Such  an 
evening  as  the  14th  Nisan  in  the  year  of  the  crucifixion  occurred  only  once  in  the 
world's  history  :  the  full  meaning  of  eternity  was  condensed  into  a  few  hours.  The 
last  words  of  our  Lord  to  His  eleven  disciples  combine  the  deepest  emotion  with  se- 
rene repose ;  they  are  unutterably  solemn,  weighty,  and  comforting ;  they  seem  to 
sound  directly  from  heaven,  and  they  lift  the  reader  high  above  time  and  space.  We 
have  here  more  than  words,  we  have  things,  verities,  acts  of  infinite  love  going  out 
from  God  and  going  into  the  hearts  of  men.  The  main  ideas  are  :  I  in  the  Father  : 
the  Father  in  Me ;  I  in  the  believer :  the  believer  in  3Ie ;  I  came  from  3Iy  Father 
in  heaven  :  I  fulfilled  His  will  on  earth  ;  I  now  return  to  My  Father,  and  prepare  a 
place  for  my  disciples  in  the  many  mansions  of  my  Father's  house  that  they  may  be 
where  I  am  and  share  my  glory. — P.  S.] 


13:  32.]  JOHN  XIIL  303 

Hs  the  Son  of  man  glorified,  and  God  is    glorified  in 
32  him;  and  God  shall   glorify  him  in  himself,   and 

1  Or,  was. 

Vers.  31,  32.  In  the  going  out  of  Judas  Jesus  sees  the  disappear- 
ance of  the  last  trace  of  the  world  from  His  presence.  It  is  the  to- 
ken to  Him,  therefore,  that  the  struggle  is  past,  that  the  victory  is 
won,  that  the  moment  of  His  glorification  has  arrived.  To  the  eye  of 
sense,  indeed,  it  seems  as  if  at  that  instant  the  powers  of  darkness 
triumphed.  But  that  was  only  the  outward  aspect  of  the  events  now 
to  be  consummated.  We  are  on  the  verge  of  the  'lifting  on  high;' 
and  in  what  the  world  thinks  shame  there  really  begins  the  brightest 
manifestation  of  the  '  glory '  bc'th  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Father.  Hence 
the  emphatic  'Now'  with  which  Jesus  introduces  His  words.  The 
'glorifying'  spoken  of  in  the  first  two  sentences  is  not  to  be  distin- 
guished from  that  of  the  last  two,  as  if  the  former  were  the  glory  of 
suffering  by  which  Jesus  glorified  the  Father,  the  latter  that  of  reward 
by  which  the  Father  glorified  Him.  It  is  throughout  the  same  glory 
that  is  in  view,  and  that  not  an  outward  but  an  inward  glory ;  although 
the  word  'glorify'  implies  that  what  had  been  for  a  time  veiled,  ob- 
scured, is  now  made  manifest  in  the  brightness  which  is  its  true  and 
proper  characteristic.  The  glory  spoken  of  is  that  of  Sonship,  the 
glory  belonging  to  the  Son  as  the  absolutely  perfect  expression  of  the 
Father,  and  especially  of  that  love  of  the  Father  which  is  the  essen- 
tial element  of  the  Father's  being.  This  expression  had  been  found 
in  the  Son,  not  only  throughout  the  eternity  preceding  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  but  also  after  He  became  Sou  of  man ;  and  it  is  to  be 
particularly  observed  that  it  is  of  the  glorifying  of  the  '  Son  of  man ' 
that  Jesus  speaks  in  the  words  before  us.  His  life  on  earth,  not  less 
than  His  previous  life  in  heaven,  had  been  the  manifestation  of  the 
Father's  love.  But  its  'glory'  had  not  been  seen.  The  world's  idea 
of  glory  was  altogether  different ;  it  had  misunderstood  and  perse- 
cuted, and  was  about  to  crucify.  Him  whose  life  of  lowly  and  self-de- 
nying service  in  love  had  been  the  highest  and  most  glorious  expres- 
sion of  the  love  of  God  to  sinful  men.  This  had  been  the  cloud  ob- 
scuring the  'glory.'  But  'now,'  when  the  struggle  was  over, — when, 
notwithstanding  all  appearances  to  the  contrary,  the  'lifting  on  high, 
out  of  the  earth'  (comp.  on  chap.  12:  32),  the  resurrection,  the  ascen- 
sion, and  the  bestowal  of  the  Spirit  established  the  triumph  of  Jesus, 
— the  cloud  was  rolled  away,  and  the  glory  always  in  Him,  but  hid- 
den for  a  time,  was  to  shine  foi'th  with  an  effulgence  that  all,  though 
some  unwillingly,  should  own.  In  this  respect  the  'Son  of  man'  is 
'  now  glorified.'  Thus,  also,  'God  is  glorified  in  Him;'  because  it  is 
seen  that  even  all  the  humiliation  and  sufferings  of  His  earthly  state, 
flowing  as  they  did  from  love,  the  expression  as  they  were  of  love,  are 
the  manifestations  of  the  love  of  God.  Nor  is  this  all,  for  '  God  shall 
glorify  Him  in  Himself; '  that  is,  shall  bring  out  before  the  whole  irni- 


304  JOHN  XIII.  [13:  33-35. 

33  straightway  shall  he  glorify  him.  Little  children, 
yet  a  little  while  I  am  with  you.  Ye  shall  seek  me  : 
and  as  I  said  unto  the  Jews,  Whither  I  go  ye  cannot 

34  come ;  so  now  I  say  unto  you.  A  new  commandment 
I  give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another ;  ^even  as  I 

35  have  loved  you,  that  ye  also  love  one  another.     By 

1  Or,  even  as  I  loved  yon,  that  ye  also  may  love  one  another. 

verse  of  being  that  the  lowly,  the  crucified,  Son  of  man  is  *in  Him- 
self,' one  with  Him,  His  Beloved  in  whom  His  soul  is  well  pleased 
(Isa.  42:  1;  Matt.  12:  18).  Finally  God  will  do  this  'straightway,' 
for  the  moment  of  death,  of  resurrection,  and  of  all  that  followed,  is 
at  hand.  Can  we  fail  to  understand  the  triumphant  *Now'  of  Jesus 
at  the  very  instant  when  Judas  was  on  his  way  to  complete  his  trea- 
chery ?     But  if  there  be  triumph  for  Himself,  what  of  His  disciples? 

Ver.  33.  Little  children,  yet  a  little  while  I  am  with  you. 
For  them  there  is  separation  from  Him,  and  the  thought  of  its  near- 
ness lends  more  than  ordinary  tenderness  to  the  words  of  Jesus.  He 
calls  them  '  little  children,'  a  term  found  nowhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, except  here  and  in  the  First  Epistle  of  John  (chap.  2:  1,  12, 
28;  3:  7,  18;  4:  4;  5:  21);  for  the  more  probable  reading  of  Gal. 
4:  19  is  simply 'children,' — Ye  shall  seek  me:  and  even  as  I 
said  unto  the  Jews,  Whither  I  go  away,  ye  cannot  come : 
so  now  I  say  to  you.  These  words  had  been  spoken  to  the  Jews 
at  chaps.  7:  34;  8:  21.  They  are  now  addressed  lo  beloved  disci- 
ples. Yet  we  are  probably  to  seek  for  no  other  basis  of  the  common 
thought  than  this,  that  the  '  going  away '  of  Jesus  involved  His  sepa- 
ration fi'om  the  community  of  human  life,  from  friends,  therefore  no 
less  than  foes.  The  desolate  state  in  which  the  disciples  would  thus 
be  left,  and,  not  less  than  this,  the  greater  responsibility  that  would 
then  rest  upon  them  to  carry  out  the  work  of  Jesus,  prepare  the  way 
for  the  words  that  follow, 

Ver.  34.  The  'new  commandment'  is  love,  such  love  as  Jesus  had 
Himself  exhibited,  and  as  had  been  His  'glory'  (ver,  34);  and  this 
love  to  one  another  they  would  need,  that  in  an  evil  world  they  might 
be  to  one  another  sources  of  strength  and  comfort.  It  is  again  the 
lesson  of  the  foot-washing ;  though  here  it  appears  not  so  much  in  the 
form  of  general  love  to  all  men  as  of  that  specific  love  wjiich  can  only 
be  exercised  towards  the  members  of  the  body  of  Christ.  By  *  com- 
mandment' is  meant  not  a  definite  precept,  but  rather  a  sphere  of  life 
in  which  the  disciples  are  to  walk  (chaps.  10:  18;  12:  50);  and  it  is 
this,  rather  than  the  character  or  quality  of  the  love,  that  makes  the 
commandment  '  new, '  The  whole  life  of  Jesus  had  been  love ;  the 
new  life  of  His  disciples,  as  that  of  those  in  Him,  was  to  be  love  also. 
Out  of  Him  is  selfishness;  in  Him,  an^l  in  Him  alone,  we  love. 

Ver,  35.     By  this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  disciples 


13 :  36-38.]  JOHN  XIII.  305 

this  shall  all  men  know  that  ye  are  my  disciples,  if  ye 
have  love  one  to  another. 

36  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  whither  goest 
thou  ?  Jesus  answered.  Whither  I  go,  thou  canst  not 
follow  me  now ;  but  thou   shalt  follow  afterwards. 

37  Peter  saith  unto  him.  Lord,  why  cannot  I  follow  thee 

38  even  now  ?  I  will  lay  down  my  life  for  thee.  Jesus 
answereth.   Wilt   thou  lay   down   thy  life  for   me? 

of  mine,  if  ye  have  love  one  with  another.  The  expression 
'disciples  of  mine,'  seems  to  show  that  the  meaning  is  not  exhausted 
by  the  thought  of  that  language  so  often  quoted  in  connection  with  it, 
'  Behold  how  these  Christians  love  one  another.'  It  directs  our 
thoughts,  not  to  the  disciples  only,  but  to  Jesus  Himself.  He  was 
love :  in  the  love  of  the  Christian  community,  the  love  of  its  members 
'with'  one  another,  it  was  to  be  seen  not  merely  what  they  were,  but 
what  He  was,  and  more  particularly  that  He  was  love.  Thus,  then, 
the  disciples  have  their  great  charge  committed  to  them, — to  be  in  the 
season  now  at  hand  what  He  bad  been  who  had  washed  tlieir  feet, 

Ver.  36.  Simon  Peter  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  whither  go- 
est thou  away  ?  Peter  has  not  been  able  to  apprehend  aright  the 
truths  of  which  Jesus  has  been  speaking.  We  need  not  wonder  at  it ; 
and,  had  he  understood  them  fully,  there  would  have  been  less  neces- 
sity either  for  the  instructions  that  follow  or  for  the  discipline  of  his 
fall.  As  it  is,  thinking  only  of  himself  and  his  fellow-disciples,  fail- 
ing to  see  the  greatness  of  the  charge  that  would  be  committed  to  them 
when  Jesus  went  away,  and  not  yet  trained  as  he  will  be,  he  turns  to 
the  thought  of  the  separation  spoken  of  in  ver.  33,  and  asks  whither 
his  Lord  goeth.  No  direct  answer  is  given  to  the  question.  Peter 
must  have  known  his  work  and  done  it  before  he  could  have  properly 
comprehended  the  answer,  had  it  been  given  ;  for  a  disciple's  reward 
stands  in  such  a  relation  to  his  work,  that  without  a  knowledge  of  the 
latter  he  could  have  no  true  knowledge  of  the  former.  Therefore  it 
is  that  he  is  told  that  the  time  is  not  come  for  his  following  his  Lord. 
He  shall  follow  Him  afterwards  ;  follow  Him  in  shame,  in  humiliation, 
to  the  cross,  to  the  life  beyond  the  grave  :  then  shall  he  know. 

Ver.  37.  Peter  sees  that  in  the  words,  'Thou  canst  not  follow  me 
now,'  there  lies  the  meaning  that  he  is  not  yet  morally  prepared  for 
following  Jesus.  His  self-confidence  is  hurt  by  the  suggestion ;  and 
not  in  devotion  only,  but  in  too  high  an  estimate  of  his  own  readiness 
to  meet  every  trial  for  the  sake  of  ^he  Master  whom  he  loved,  he  cries 
out  that  he  is  ready  to  follow  Him  '  even  now,' — nay,  that  he  is  ready 
to  lay  down  his  life  for  Him.  Such  want  of  self-knowledge  must  be 
corrected. 

Ver,  38.  For  a  similar  repetition  of  Peter's  own  words  in  the  an- 
swer of  Jesus,  comp.  21  :  17  and  the  commentary.  The  words  of 
20 


306  JOHN  XIV.  *       [U:  1. 

Yerilj,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  The  cock  shall   not 
crow  till  thou  hast  denied  me  thrice. 
1      Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled  :  ^  ye  believe  in  God, 

^  Or,  believe  in  God.     [Let  marg.i  and  the  text  exchange  places. — Am.  Com.] 

Jesus  fix  with  solemn  emphasis  His  disciple's  attention   on   what  He 
Himself  had  said. 

Before  we  piss  on,  it  may  be  well  to  ask  at  what  point  in  these  chapters  we  are  to 
place  the  institution  of  the  Supper.  The  point  has  been  very  variously  fixed  :  at  the 
beginning  of  chap,  13,  at  the  end  of  chap.  14,  at  the  end  of  chap.  13,  between  vers. 
30  and  31,  vers.  32  and  33,  in  the  midst  of  ver.  34  of  the  present  chapter.  But  these 
suppositions  are  attended  with  more  or  less  improbability.  We  have  already  seen 
(in  ver.  26)  that '  the  feast,'  with  the  institution  of  which  the  Supper  was  most  closely 
connected,  was  then  beginaing  ;  but  there  is  reason  to  think  that  Judas  did  not  act- 
ually partake  of  it.  If  so,  the  natural  inference  is  that  it  was  completed  between 
vers.  30  and  31,  immediately  after  the  traitor  had  gone  out.  The  objection  to  this 
view,  that  the  words  of  ver.  31  follow  too  closely  upon  ver.  30  to  permit  us  to  think 
that  time  was  occupied  between  the  two  verses,  is  less  weighty  than  at  first  appears. 
The  words  would  follow  with  great  appropriateness  the  giving  of  the  cup  which  was 
the  '  new  covenant  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  ;'  and  the  word  '  therefore  '  of  ver.  31  doea 
not  necessarily  imply  that  Jesus  spoke  at  that  moment,  but  only  that  the  thoughts 
awakened  by  the  departure  of  Judas  must  have  remained  in  all  their  freshness  when 
ver.  31  was  uttered.  This  they  would  do  even  although  the  giving  of  the  cup  inter- 
vened, because  that  cup  expressed  in  the  most  solemn  form  the  exclusive  intimacy  of 
communion  which  now  existed  between  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  and  the  existence  of 
which  is  presupposed  in  vers.  34,  35  and  36.  If  this  explanation  is  not  accepted,  there 
seems  no  valid  reason  why  the  institution  should  not  be  placed  between  vers.  35  and 
36.  The  latter  of  thes  e  need  not  follow  the  former  at  once.  The  words  '  I  go  away  ' 
(ver.  33),  once  uttered,  would  linger  in  the  minds  of  those  present  as  the  one  tliought 
demanding  explanation  ;  and  '  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me'  would  deepen  it. 

Chap.  14,  ver.  1.  Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled:  believe 
in  God,  believe  also  in  me.  No  separation  ought  to  be  made  be- 
tween this  chapter  and  the  last  section  of  chap.  13,  for  the  place,  the 
circumstances,  and  the  object  of  the  discourse  here  entered  on  are  the 
same  as  there.  The  dominating  thought  of  all  is  that  of  chap.  13:  31, — 
that  the  time  is  come  when  a  full  revelation  is  to  be  made  of  the 
'  glory '  of  the  Son  of  man  in  the  Father,  and  of  the  Father  in  Him  ; 
when  it  shall  be  seen  that  the  'going  away'  of  Jesus  to  the  Father  not 
only  contains  in  it  what  swallows  up  all  the  humiliation  of  His  earthly 
lot,  but  is  the  great  proof  and  illustration  of  that  union  of  Himself 
with  the  Father  in  love,  the  manifestation  of  which  '  glorifies '  both  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  To  such  a  manifestation,  then,  it  is  evident  that 
the  '  going  away '  of  Jesus  was  necessary  :  He  must  in  His  earthly  form 
be  separated  from  His  disciples,  that  His  glory  may  be  revealed  not 
only  to  those  who  had  the  spiritual  eye,  but  to  the  world  (chaps.  16 : 


14:  2].  JOHN  XIV.  807 

2  believe  also  in  me.     In  my  Father's  house  are  many 
^mans-ions  ;  if  it  were  not  so,  I  would  have  told  you  ; 

1  Or,  abidmg-places. 

10;  17:  21),  While  however  separation  must  thus  take  place,  it  is, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  object  of  our  Lord  to  show  that  it  was  really  no 
separation, — that  He  does  not  '  go  away  '  in  the  carnal  sense  under- 
stood by  Peter  in  13  :  36,  but  will  ever  be  with  His  disciples  in  an 
abiding  union  and  communion  of  spirit,  (comp.  the  imeresting  par- 
allel in  20 :  17).  The  'trouble'  spoken  of  in  the  words  now  before 
us  is  not  that  of  mere  sorrow  ;  it  is  rather  that  which  Jesns  had  Him- 
self experienced  (see  12:  27)  when  the  prospect  of  His  sufferings  rose 
immediately  before  Him.  It  is  '  trouble  '  from  the  opposition  of  the 
world  while  they  carry  on  their  work  of  love;  but  '  trouble  '  which  at 
the  same  time  passes  into  the  heart,  and  leads  to  the  conflictof  all  those 
feelings  of  anxiety,  perplexity,  fear  and  sorrow,  which  make  the  heart 
like  a  '  troubled  sea'  that  the  Divine  voice  '  Peace,  be  still !'  alone  can 
calm.  The  foundation  of  all  peace  comes  first,  and  the  word  '  believe ' 
must  be  taken  in  the  same  way  in  both  clauses  of  the  statement.  To 
understand  it  differently  in  the  two  would  give,  either  to  faith  in  God 
or  to  faith  in  Jesus,  an  independent  existence  inconsistent  with  the 
general  teaching  of  this  Gospel.  We  must,  therefore,  either  translate, 
'  Ye  believe  in  God,  ye  believe  also  in  me,'  or,  '  Believe  in  God,  believe 
also  in  me  ;'  the  hortatory  form  of  '  Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled ' 
and  of  the  whole  discourse  makes  the  latter  probable.  Yet,  as  the  dis- 
ciples already  believed,  the  exhortation  must  have  reference  not  to  the 
formation,  but  to  the  deepening  and  constant  exercise  of  that  fjiith, 
the  object  of  which  is  really  one — God  in  Jesus,  Thus  also  we  may 
understand  why  faith  in  God  is  mentioned  first,  and  not  second,  as  in 
12 :  44,  It  is  the  highest  act  of  faith  that  is  referred  to, — faith,  no 
doubt,  in  God  through  Jesus,  but  faith  in  Him  as  the  ultimate  Guide 
of  all  that  happens.  It  is  the  evolution  of  the  Divine  plan  that  they 
have  to  do  with  ;  therefore  let  them  believe  in  '  God.'  The  order  of 
the  words  in  the  two  clauses  is  different,  '  God '  following,  but  '  me ' 
preceding,  its  verb.  The  effect  is  to  bring  '  in  God'  and  'in  me'  into 
the  closest  possible  connection. 

Ver.  2.  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  places  of  abode  : 
if  it  -were  not  so,  I  -would  have  told  you ;  because  I  go  to 
prepare  a  place  for  you.  All  the  substantives  here  used — '  house,' 
'places  of  abode,'  '  place  ' — are  full  of  meaning.  The  first  is  not  the 
material  building,  but  the  building  as  occupied  by  its  inmates  ;  the 
second,  used  in  the  New  Testament  only  in  this  verse  and  in  ver.  23, 
is  connected  with  the  characteristic  'abide'  of  our  Gospel;  and  the 
third  embodies  the  idea  of  something  fixed  and  definite — something 
that  we  may  call  our  own  (comp.  11  :  48).  But  the  full  force  and 
beauty  of  the  words  are  only  understood  when  we  look  at  them  in  a 
light  different  from  that  in  which  they  are  generally  regarded.     For 


JOHN  XIV.  [14:  3. 


3  for  I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you.  And  if  I  go  and 
prepare  a  place  for  you,  I  come  again,  and  will  receive 
you  unto  myself ;  that  where   I   am,  there  ye  may  be 

•my  Father's  house'  does  not  mean  heaven  as  distinguished  from 
earth,  nor  are  the  '  abiding  places  '  confined  to  the  world  to  come. 
Earth  as  well  as  heaven  is  to  the  eye  of  faith  a  part  of  that  'house:' 
'  abiding  places'  are  here  as  well  as  there.  The  universe,  in  short,  is 
presented  to  us  by  our  Lord  as  one  '  house  '  over  which  the  Father 
rules,  having  '  many '  apartments,  some  on  this  side,  others  on  the 
other  side,  the  grave.  In  one  of  these  the  believer  dwells  now,  and 
the  Father  and  the  Son  come  unto  him,  and  make  their  abode  with 
him  (ver.  23)  :  in  another  of  them  he  will  dwell  hereafter.  When, 
therefore,  Jesus  '  goes  away,'  it  is  not  to  a  strange  land,  it  is  only  to 
another  chamber  of  the  one  house  of  the  Father :  and  thus  *  many  ' 
is  not  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  vai'iety, — of  different  degrees  of 
happiness  and  glory  provided  for  different  persons.  The  main  thought 
is  that  wherever  .Jesus  is,  wherever  we  are,  we  are  all  in  the  Father's 
house:  surely  such  separation  is  no  real  separation.  Had  not  this 
been  the  true  nature  of  the  case, — had  it  not  been  essentially  involved 
in  the  mission  of  Jesus  that  His  disciples,  once  united  to  Him,  could 
never  be  separated  from  Him.  He  would  '  have  told '  them.  His 
teaching  would  have  been  entirely  different  from  what  it  had  been ; 
but,  because  wherever  He  was  there  He  would  prepare  a  place  for 
them  also,  He  had  not  thought  it  necessary  till  now  to  speak  either  of 
being  separated  or  of  being  united  again.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that 
the  words  beginning  with  '  because '  are  to  be  connected  with  those 
going  immediately  before,  and  not  with  the  earlier  part  of  the  verse. 

Ver.  8.  All  that  has  preceded  these  words  has  rested  upon  the  idea 
that,  although  Jesus  is  now  'going  away'  to  the  Father,  He  is  not 
really  forsaking  His  disciples.  Even  when  in  one  sense  separated 
from  them,  in  another  He  will  still  be  with  them  ;  and  this  latter 
presence  will  in  due  time,  when  they  like  Him  have  accomplished 
their  work,  be  followed  by  their  receiving  again  that  joy  of  His  im- 
mediate presence  which  they  are  now  to  lose.  This  double  thought 
seems  to  explain  the  remarkable  use  of  two  different  tenses  of  the 
verb  in  the  second  clause  of  the  verse, — '  I  come,'  '  I  will  receive.' 
'  He  is '  wherever  His  people  are  :  they  '  shall  be,'  when  their  toils 
are  over,  wherever  He  is  (comp.  12:  2<3).  The  Second  Coming  of  the 
Lord  is  not,  therefore,  resolved  by  these  words  into  a  merely  spirit- 
ual presence  in  which  He  shall  be  always  with  His  people.  The  true 
light  in  which  to  look  at  that  great  fact  is  as  the  manifestation  of  a 
presence  never  far  away  from  us  (comp.  ver.  18).  Our  Lord  is  always 
with  us,  though  (as  we  have  yet  to  see)  it  is  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
that  He  is  now.  He  will  again  Himself,  in  His  own  person,  be  with 
us,  and  we  with  Him,  when  our  work  is  '  finished.'  Observe  also  the 
change  of  order  in  the  original  in  the  case  of  the  words  *  I  am '  and 


14:  4-6.]  JOHN  XIV.  309 

4  also.     ^And  whither  I  go,  ye  know  the  way.    Thomas 

6  saith  uuto  him,  Lord,  we  know  not  whither  thou  goest ; 

6  how  know  we  the  way  ?    Jesus  saith   unto  liim,  I  am 

the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life  :  no  one  cometh 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  And  whither  I  go  j/e  know,  and  the  way  ye  Jcuoio. 

'  ye  may  be,'  the  effect  being  to  bring  the  '  I '  and  the  *  ye'  into  the 
closest  juxtaposition  (comp.  on  ver.  1). 

Ver.  4.  And  -whither  I  go  avray  ye  know  the  "way.  These 
words  convey  to  the  disciples  the  assurance  that  they  already  had  the 
pledge  and  earnest  of  all  that  Jesus  had  spoken  of;  for  their  inter- 
pretation depends  on  the  same  principle  as  that  formerly  applied  at 
chap.  4:  32.  To  'know'  is  not  merely  to  know  of;  it  is  to  have  in- 
ward experience  of.  As,  therefore,  'whither  I  go'  is  the  Father's 
presence ;  as  Jesus  is  the  way  to  the  Father ;  and  as  they  have  ex- 
perimental knowledge  of  Him,  they  'know  the  way.' 

Ver.  5.  Thomas  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  we  know  not 
w^hither  thou  goest  away  ;  how  do  we  know  the  w^ay  ?  In 
ver.  4,  Jesus  had  spoken  of  '  going  away,' — not  of  *  going,'  as  in  ver. 
3.  The  idea  of  separation  is  thus  again  brought  prominently  forward, 
and  Thomas  is  overborne  by  the  thought  of  it  (comp  11 :  16).  His 
discouragement,  which  blinds  his  eyes,  is  uttered  in  the  words  be- 
fore us. 

Ver.  6.  I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life.  The 
three  terms  here  used  must  not  be  taken  as  expressing  three  indepen- 
dent thoughts  ;  still  less  can  we  fuse  them  into  one,  as  if  the  meaning 
were,  '  I  am  the  true  way  of  life.'  It  is  evident,  both  from  what  pre- 
cedes and  from  what  follows,  that  the  emphasis  is  on  '  way,'  and  that 
the  two  other  terms  are  in  some  sense  additional  and  explicative.  But 
in  what  sense  <*  Let  us  notice  that  the  thought  of  the  Father  is  the 
leading  thought  of  the  previous  verses  of  the  chapter,  and  that  in 
ver.  7  the  knowledge  of  the  Father  is  the  great  end  to  be  attained ;  let 
us  further  observe  that  '  truth '  and  '  life '  are  precisely  the  two  con- 
stituent elements  of  that  knowledge,  the  one  that  upon  which  it  rests, 
the  other  that  in  which  it  issues  ;  and  we  shall  see  that  Jesus  adds 
these  two  designations  of  Himself  to  the  first,  because  they  express 
the  contents,  the  substance,  of  that  in  which  the  '  way '  consists.  The 
Father  is  '  the  truth,'  '  the  life  :'  Jesus  is  the  revelation  of  these  to 
men  :  because  He  is  so  He  is  '  the  way ;'  and  because  He  only  is  so, 
He  is  the  only  way  to  the  Father.  We  must  beware,  however,  of  the  sup- 
position that  the  'life'  thus  spokenof  isonlylife  tousinafuture  world. 
It  is  life  now  in  that  ever-ascending  cycle  of  experience  in  which  the 
believer  passes  from  one  stage  to  another  of  '  truth,'  and  thus  from  one 
stage  to  another  of  corresponding  'life.'  In  the  present  'way'  we 
have  present  '  truth  '  and  present  '  life  ;'  and  each  fresh  appropriation 
of  the  truth  deepens  that  communion  by  which  the  life  is  conditioned. 


310  JOHN  XIV.  [14 :  7,  8. 

7  uDto  the  Father,  but  ^by  me.  If  ye  had  knowD  me,  ye 
would  have  known  my  Father  also :  from  henceforth 

8  ye  know  him,  and  have  seen  him.     Philip  saith  unto 
him,  Lord,  shew  us   the  Father,  and  it   sufficeth  us. 

1  Or,  through. 

It  may  be  well  to  notice,  too,  that  the  prominence  here  given  to  the 
mention  of  the  '  way '  arises  from  that  thought  of  separation  with 
which  the  minds  of  the  disciples  were  filled.  Jesus  had  said  to  them, 
'  I  must  go  away,'  and  it  seemed  to  them  as  if  in  the  language  a  jour- 
ney were  involved,  which  would  separate  them  from  their  Lord.  There- 
fore with  loving  condescension  the  figure  is  taken  up,  and  they  are 
assured  that  He  is  Himself,  if  we  may  so  speak,  this  very  distance  to 
be  traversed.  Is  it  a  '  way '  that  they  have  to  travel  ?  Then  He  is 
•  the  way,'  and  all  along  its  course  they  shall  be  still  with  Him. 

Ver.  7.  If  ye  had  learned  to  know  me,  ye  -would  know 
my  Father  also.  The  change  in  this  verse  from  '  the  Father  '  of 
ver.  6  to  '  my  Father,'  as  well  as  the  use  in  the  original  of  two  differ- 
ent verbs  for  'know,'  is  peculiarly  instructive.  The  meaning  seems  to 
be,  that  when  we  have  gained  a  knowledge  of  the  Son,  we  find  our- 
selves possessed  of  a  knowledge  of  His  Father  ;  then  in  that  know- 
ledge, the  veil  which  hides  from  us  in  our  natural  condition  the 
true  knowledge  of  God  is  withdrawn,  and  we  possess  the  highest 
knowledge  of  all,  the  knowledge  of  God  in  the  deepest  verity  of  His 
being,  the  knowledge  of  *  the  Father.'  It  is  true  that  we  immediately 
read.  From  henceforth  ye  learn  to  know  Him,  and  have 
seen  Him.  But  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  possession  of  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  God  is  never  reached  by  us.  Each  stage  of  *  knowing' 
is  but  the  beginning  of  a  new  stage  of  '  learning  to  know  '  more ; 
'  forgetting  the  things  that  are  behind,'  we  start  ever  afresh  towards  a 
knowledge  of  '  the  Father,'  always  increasing  but  never  consummated. 
The  same  remai'k  applies  to  '  have  seen,'  by  which  we  are  to  under- 
stand '  have  begun  to  see.'  This  knowledge,  this  sight,  the  disciples 
have  'from  henceforth.'  The  point  of  time  is  not  Pentecost  anticipated. 
It  dates  from  the  great  '  Now '  of  chap.  13  :  31,  and  the  explanation  is 
to  be  found  in  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  the  disciples  have 
been  placed  since  then.  They  have  been  separated  from  all  worldly 
thoughts  of  Jesus ;  His  true  '  glory '  and  the  true  glory  of  the  Father 
in  Him  have  been  revealed  in  all  their  brightness  ;  and  in  an  intimacy 
of  communion  with  their  Lord  never  enjoyed  before  they  '  learn  to 
know'  with  an  inward  spiritual  discernment,  they  'have  seen'  with  a 
sharpness  of  spiritual  intuition,  not  previously  possessed  by  them. 

Ver.  8.  The  same  bluntness  of  spiritual  sight  (that  is,  really  the 
same  weakness  of  faith)  that  had  been  exhibited  by  Thomas  is  now 
exhibited  by  Philip,  though  in  relation  to  another  point.  Jesus  had 
said  (ver.  7)  that  the  disciples  had  seen  the  Father,  meaning  that  they 
had  seen  the  Father  in  Him.     Philip  fails  to  understand  ;  and,  think- 


14:  9,  11.]  JOHN  XIV.  311 

9  Jesus. saith  unto  him,  Have  I  been  so  long  time  with 
you,  and  dost  thou  not  know  me,  Philip  ?  he  that 
hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  J^^ather  ;    how  sayest  thou, 

10  Shew  us  the  Father  ?  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am 
in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  ?  the  words  that 
I  say  unto    you    I    speak  not  from  myself ;   but  the 

11  Father  abiding  in   me  doeth  his  works.     Believe  me, 

ing  perhaps  of  the  revelation  given  to  Moses  in  Ex.  33  :  18,  19,  he 
asks  that  lie  and  his  fellow-disciples  may  have  granted  them  some 
actual  vision  of  the  Father  (comp.  his  spirit  in  6:  7).  The  reply  of 
Jesus,  vers.  9-21,  falls  into  three  leading  parts,  of  which  the  first  is 
found  in  vers.  9-11. 

Ver.  9.  '  Have  I  been  with  you,'  literally,  *  Am  I  with  you,'  the 
very  words  of  ver.  8.  The  words  are  those  of  astonishment  and  sor- 
row that  the  effect  of  all  this  spiritual  intercourse  has  failed  ;  and  the 
declaration  of  Jesus  in  the  latter  half  of  the  verse  rests  upon  the  fact 
that  He  is  the  complete  expression  of  the  Father  (comp.  chap.  1 :  18). 
He  does  not  say  '  my  Father  '  but  *  the  Father,'  because  He  speaks 
not  of  the  personal  relation  between  the  Father  and  Himself,  but  of 
the  light  in  which  God  is  revealed  as  Father  to  all  who  learn  to  know 
Him  in  the  Son. 

Ver.  10.  If  what  is  stated  in  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  be  the 
fact,  the  bluntness  of  Philip's  spiritual  vision  will  be  proved.  It  is  of 
this  truth,  therefore,  that  Jesus  speaks.  The  statement  is  that  of  one 
great  truth  with  two  sides,  each  of  which  has  its  appropriate  proof — 
the  first,   in  the    'words'   of  Jesus;     the  second,    in    the   Father's 

*  W07'ks.'  For,  as  to  the  first,  that  Jesus  is  '  in  the  Father,'  He  is  the 
Word,  and  words  characterize  Him.  If  His  words  are  not  '  from 
Himself,'  He  is  not  from  Himself;  if  they  are  the  Father's,  He  is  '  in 
the  Father.'  As  to  the  second,  the  Father  does  not  work  directly.  He 
works  only  through  the  Son  ;  therefore  as  the  Father  He  can  be  known 
only  in  the  Son.  Thus  the  Son  is  in  the  Father  ;  He  is  in  no  other 
way :  the  Father  is  in  the  Son  ;  He  is  the  Father  in  no  other  way. 
Hence  the  proof  of  the  statement  to  Philip,  *  He  that  hath  seen  me 
hath  seen  the  Father,'  is  complete.  The  distinction  between  '  words ' 
and  '  works  '  in  this  verse  thus  springs  from  a  point  of  view  wholly 
difi^erent  from  that  which  refers  the  one  to  the  teaching,  the  other  to 
the  miracles,  of  Jesus  ;  it  is  connected  with  the  essential  qualities  of 
that  Son  who  is  the  Word,  of  that  God  who  is  the  Father.  The  tran- 
sition from  the  '  words '  to  the  '  works,'  otherwise  so  inexplicable,  is 
also  thus  at  once  explained.  This  is  the  only  passage  of  the  Gospel 
in  which  the  verb  '  say '  is  connected  with  the    '  words '   or  with  the 

*  word  '  of  Jesus.  '  The  words  that  I  say  unto  you '  are  equivalent  to 
'  My  words.' 

Ver.  11.     Jesus  has  established  the  proposition  by  which  He  would 


312  JOHN  XIV.  [14:  12. 

that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me :  or 
12  else  believe  me  for  the  very  works'  sake.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  believeth  on  me,  the 
works  that  I  do  shall  he  do  also  ;  and  greater  tvorks 
than  these  shall  he  do ;  because  I  go  unto  the  Father. 

show  Philip  the  impropriety  of  his  request.  He  now  calls  upon  him, 
and  upon  the  other  disciples  through  him,  to  receive  it.  First,  they 
ought  to  do  this  upon  the  authority  of  His  own  statement,  the  state- 
ment of  One  who  is  in  the  Father;  but,  if  that  be  not  enough,  then 
upon  the  auihority  of  the  Father  s  works  in  Him.  By  these  last  we 
are  certainly  not  to  understand  miracles  alone.  Miracles  are,  no 
doubt,  included,  although  not  simply  as  works  of  supernatural  power. 
All  the  works  of  the  Father  in  the  Son  are  meant,  all  bearing  on  them 
those  tokens  of  the  Father  which  appeal  to  the  heart,  and  ought  to 
satisfy  men  that,  in  doing  them,  Jesus  reveals  not  Himself  but  the 
Father.     The  second  part  of  the  reply  follows  in  vers.  12-14. 

Ver.  12.  It  seemed  to  the  disciples  that,  by  the  departure  of  Jesus, 
all  the  glorious  manifestations  of  the  Divine  which  they  had  beheld  in 
Him  would  be  brought  to  an  end.  So  far  is  this  from  being  the  case 
that  these  shall  not  only  continue  but  become  even  more  glorious  than 
before.  By  '  works '  we  are  to  understand  something  wider  than 
miracles,  for  the  promise  is  to  all  believers,  and  it  cannot  be  said  that 
thev  in  any  age  have  wrought  greater  miracles  than  their  Lord.  What 
Jesus  speaks  of  is  the  general  power  of  the  spiritual  life,  not  only  aa 
it  exists  in  the  breast  of  the  believer,  but  as  it  shows  itself  in  all  life 
and  action  corresponding  to  its  nature.  What  He  had  been  and  had 
done  was  to  be  exhibited  in  the  disciples  themselves.  They  were  to 
be  put  into  His  position,  to  take  His  place,  to  be  sustained  in  all  in- 
ward strength  and  outward  manifestation  as  He  had  been.  Nay  more, 
He  was  goniff  to  the  Father, — not  the  verb  of  13:  33,  36;  14:  4,  5, 
but  another,  suggesting  less  the  thought  of  what  He  was  leaving  tham 
the  thought  of  what  He  was  going  to  ;  and  He  was  going  to  '  the  Fa- 
ther,'not'^His  own  Father  only,  but  One  who  stood  in  the  same  relation 
to  all  the  members  of  His  body.  Therefore  what  He  had  been  and 
had  done  would  be  still  more  gloriously  unfolded  in  them  than  it  had 
been  as  yet  in  Him.  When  He  went  to  the  Father,  His  life  would  be 
set  free  from  the  struggles  and  sufferings  by  which  its  power  and 
glory  had  been  obscured  on  earth.  But  His  disciples  were  one  with 
Him,  and  what  He  was  they  should  be.  They  are  the  organs  not  of  a 
humbled  only  but  of  an  ascended  Lord ;  and  through  what  He  is  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father  they  shall  do  '  greater  works '  than  He 
did  in°the  world.  The  same  great  truth  is  expressed  in  1  John  4:17, 
♦  Because  as  He  is'  (not  was),  '  so  are  we  in  this  world.'  How  little 
do  Christians  realie  their  position  and  their  privileges ! 


14:  13-15.]  JOHN  XIV.  313 

13  And  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name,  that  will  I 

14  do,  that  the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the  Son.  If  ye 
shall  ask  ^  me  anything*  in  my  name,  that  will  I  do. 

15  If  ye  love  me,  ye  will  keep  my  commandments.    And 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  omit  me. 

*  •'  For  shall  ask  me  anything,"  read  "  shall  ask  anything  "  and  let  marg.  i  road 
many  ancient  authorities. — Am.  Com. 

Vers.  13,  14.  The  twice  repealed  'this  I  will  do,'  of  these  verses, 
is  the  taking  up  again  of  the  'do'  of  ver.  12;  so  that  what  Jesus 
says  is,  that  He  in  His  glorified  condition,  being  the  believer 's 
strength  for  what  he  does,  will  be  the  real  doer  both  of  the  *  works ' 
and  the  'greater  works'  done  by  Him.  The  condition  on  our  part  of 
the  accomplishment  of  this  promise  is  prayer.  (1)  Prayer  in  the 
name  of  Jesus,  the  words  '  in  my  name'  occurring  in  both  these  verses. 
This  expression  is  connected  not  only  with  our  asking,  but,  in  ver. 
26,  with  the  Father's  sending;  and  that  the  order  as  well  as  the  con- 
tents of  the  thought  is  to  be  observed,  is  made  clear  by  the  fact  that 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  discourse  the  same  order  is  observed  (comp. 
15:  16  and  16:  23).  The  'name'  spoken  of  is  in  the  first  place  the 
name  of  'Son;'  as  we  shall  find  that  in  chap.  17  the  'name'  of  God 
spoken  of  is  in  the  first  place  that  of  '  the  Father.'  But  the  thought 
is  not  to  be  confined  to  this.  When  we  bring  all  the  passages  together 
in  which  the  words  occur  in  14-17,  and  particularly  the  verse  before 
us  and  17  :  11,  12  ('Thy  name  which  thou  hast  given  me'),  it  becomes 
clear  that  we  must  extend  the  meaning  of  '  name '  so  as  to  include  the 
revelation  of  what  the  Father  is  in  the  Son.  To  ask  *in  the  name  of 
the  Son  of  man,'  therefore,  is  to  ask  in  a  confidence  and  hope  which 
have  their  essence  and  ground  in  the  revelation  of  the  Son.  (2)  Prayer 
to  the  Son  as  well  as  to  the  Father  ;  yet  not  to  Jesus  regarded  as  an 
independent  personality,  but  to  Him  as  the  Son,  so  that  in  praying  to 
Him  we  pray  at  the  same  time  to  the  Father,  for  only  in  the  Father 
do  we  know  the  Son.  Hence  also  the  'whatsoever'  of  ver.  13,  and 
the  'anything'  of  ver.  14,  have  in  this  their  nece.ssary  limitations. 
Believers  are  not  viewed  here  simply  as  members  of  the  human  fam- 
ily in  the  midst  of  the  weaknesses,  perplexities  and  sorrows  of  hu- 
manity. They  pray  Avith  the  mind  of  the  Son,  which  is  the  mind  of 
the  Father,  and  in  that  sphere  only  can  they  be  assured  that  whatever 
they  ask  shall  be  done  for  them  and  through  them,  '  that  the  Father 
may  be  glorified  in  the  Son.'  Only  by  the  explanation  thus  offered 
does  it  seem  possible  to  account  for  the  insertion  of  '  me  '  in  ver.  14 ; 
and  the  whole  statement  may  be  regarded  as  a  realization  of  chap.  1  : 
51,  even  the  very  same  order  of  thought  being  there  observed,  the  '  as- 
cending '  preceding  the  '  descending '  of  angels  upon  the  Son  of  man. 
The  third  part  of  the  reply  to  Philip  follows  in  vers.  15-21. 

Ver.  15.  An  abiding  communion  between  the  glorified  Redeemer 
and  His  disciples  on  earth  has  been  spoken  of  as  established, — a  com- 


314  JOHN  XIV.  [14:  16. 

16  I  will  ^pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another 

1  Gr.  make  request  of. 
munion  not  to  be  broken  by  the  '  going  away  '  of  Jesus  to  the  Father. 
The  object  of  the  present  verse  is  to  point  out  the  condition  by  which 
alone  this  communion  can  be  preserved  and  its  greatest  blessing,  the 
presence  of  the  Advocate,  enjoyed — love.  This  love,  too,  consists  in  a 
loving  self-surrender  of  ourselves  to  the  sole  object  of  glorifying  the 
Father,  analogous  to  the  loving  self-surrender  of  Jesus  ;  for  *  my  com- 
mandments' are  not  merely  commandments  which  He  gives,  but  which 
He  has  Himself  first  received  and  made  His  own  (comp.  ver.  27). 

Ver.  16.  And  I  will  ask  the  Father,  and  he  will  give  you 
another  Advocate,  that  he  may  be  with  you  for  ever.  The 
word  here  translated  in  our  English  Version  '  Comforter,  and  par- 
tially introduced  into  the  English  language  as  '  Paraclete,'  means 
properly,  One  called  to  stand  by  us  for  our  help,  our  Advocate, 
Helper,  Representative.  'Comforter'  is  not  its  meaning.  And  the 
unfortunate  use  of  this  term,  so  dear  to  the  Christian  amidst  the  trou- 
bles of  the  world,  has  tended  in  no  small  degree  to  make  believers 
think  less  of  strength  than  of  comfort,  of  the  experience  of  a  private 
Christian  who  needs  consolation  instead  of  that  of  one  who  has  to 
face  the  opposition  of  the  world  in  his  Master's  cause.  The  *  Para- 
clete '  is  really  One  who  stands  by  our  side,  sustains  us  in  our  Christ- 
ian calling,  and  breathes  into  us  ever  new  measures  of  a  spirit  of 
boldness  and  daring  in  the  warfare  we  have  to  wage.  He  is  the  re- 
presentative of  the  glorified  Lord  with  His  militant  people  upon 
earth.  The  promise  of  this  Advocate  is  given  four  times  in  the  chap- 
ters before  us  (the  only  other  passage  in  the  New  Testament  where 
the  word  occurs  being  1  John  2:1);  and  in  the  first  two,  chap.  14: 
16,  26,  it  has  reference  mainly  to  the  preparation  of  the  heart  and 
mind  of  the  disciples;  in  the  other  two  chaps.  15:  26,  16:  7,  to 
their  actual  work.  The  Advocate  thus  spoken  of  is  further  marked 
out  by  the  remarkable  addition  of  the  word  '  another ; '  and  the  word 
implies  that  the  first  Advocate  had  been  Jesus  Himself,  whose  'goings 
away  '  prevented  His  continuing  to  be  still  the  Advocate  and  Helper 
of  His  disciples.  In  this  sense  we  find  Him  described  by  the  very 
term  here  used  in  1  John  2:1:'  We  have  an  Advocate  with  the 
Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  righteous.'  It  is  in  the  idea  of  representa- 
tion that  the  two  designations  meet.  Jesus  glorified  represents  us  be- 
fore the  Father's  throne;  the  Holy  Spirit  abiding  with  us  represents 
Jesus  gone  to  the  Father.  This  word  '  other '  is  thus  full  of  the  most 
precious  meaning.  It  tells  us  that  Jesus  when  on  earth  had  been  the 
Paraclete,  the  Advocate  of  His  disciples.  It  suggests  that  what  He 
had  been  to  them  during  His  earthly  life,  His  representative  will  be 
after  He  has  'gone  away,'  so  that  every  narrative  of  what  He  had  done 
for  them  becomes  ^prediction  of  what  the  Holy  Spirit  icill  do  for  them 
and  for  us  who  come  after  them.  The  verb  '  ask '  of  this  verse  is  dif- 
ferent from  that  so  translated  in  vers.  13  and  14  ;  and  it  can  be  used 


14:  17-19.]  JOHN  XIV.  315 

17  ^  Comforter,  that  he  may  be  with  you  for  ever,  even  the 
Spirit  of  truth  :  whom  the  world  cannot  receive  ;  for 
it  behokleth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him  :  ye  know 

18  him ;  for  he  abideth  with  you  and  shall  be  in  you.     I 

19  will  not  leave  you  '^desolate  :  I  come  unto  you.  Yet 
a  little  while,  and  the  world  beholdeth  me  no  more ; 
but  ye  behold   me:  because  I   live,  ^ye   shall   live 

1  Or,  Adcocate.  Or,  Helper.  Gr.  Paraclete.      2  Or,  orjphans.      3  Or,  and  ye  shall  live. 

only  of  One  who  stands  in  that  closeness  of  relation,  in  that  intimacy 
of  union  with  the  Father,  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  throughout 
these  chapters  as  standing  to  Him  (comp.  16:  26 ;   17  :  9,  15,  20). 

Ver.  17.  What  this  Advocate  is,  is  now  explained  more  fully.  He 
is  the  Spirit  of  '  the  truth.'  the  Spirit  whose  essence  is  '  the  truth,' 
and  who  is  the  medium  by  which  'the  truth'  comes  to  men.  This 
Spirit  the  world  cannot  receive,  because  it  has  no  perception  of  the 
things  with  which  He  deals,  no  sympathy  with  them,  no  adaptation 
to  them.  As  it  cannot  'hear  God's  word,  because  it  is  not  of  God,' 
(chap.  8:  47),.  so  it  cannot  receive  the  spirit  of  the  truth,  because  it 
has  no  eye  for  the  spiritual  and  invisible,  and  no  growing  apprehen- 
sion of  them.  The  Spirit  comes  to  the  world,  and  would  stay  with  it ; 
but  it  will  not  have  Him  for  a  guest,  and  it  never  attains  to  that  ex- 
perimental knowledge  of  Him  which  is  alone  worthy  of  the  name. 
But  the  disciples  are  '  of  the  truth  ;'  they  welcome  the  heavenly  Guest; 
He  '  abides '  with  them  ;  He  '  is  '  in  them  ;  they  advance  to  ever 
deeper  knowledge  of  what  He  is  and  does. 

Ver.  18.     The  disciples  were  the  '  little  children'  of  Jesus  (13  :  33), 
and  He  may  therefore  well  speak  to  them  as  a  Father.     Not  from  Pen- 
tecost, but  from  the  moment  of  His  reunion  to  the  Father,  and  by  . 
means  of  the  Spirit  of  the  truth,  He  comes  to  them  (see  ver.  20). 

Ver.  19.  Yet  a  little  while,  and  the  world  beholdeth  me 
no  longer  ;  but  ye  behold  me.  The  'little  while'  is  that  of  13: 
38,  extending  from  the  moment  immediately  at  hand  to  the  resurrec- 
tion. After  that  '  little  while '  the  world  beholdeth  Jesus  no  more, 
but  His  disciples  behold  Him, — the  present  tense  being  used  in  both 
clauses  absolutely,  and  not  as  the  mere  present  of  time.  In  the  first 
clause  '  beholdeth '  can  be  understood  only  of  physical  vision,  for  in 
no  other  way  had  the  world  ever  beheld  Jesus,  and  the  risen  Saviour 
did  not  show  Himself  to  the  world.  In  the  second  clause  'behold' 
must  be  so  far  at  least  used  in  the  same  sense,  and  the  appearance  of 
the  risen  Jesus  must  again  be  thought  of.  Yet  the  meaning  of  the 
second  'behold'  is  not  thus  exhausted,  for  it  obviously  includes  a 
vision  of  the  Redeemer  not  limited  by  the  forty  days  between  the  re- 
suri-ection  and  the  ascension,  but  stretching  onward  into  the  eternal 
future.     The 'Me 'is  Jesus  glorified:  Him,  because  He  is  glorified, 


316  JOHN  XIV.  [14:  20,21. 

20  also.     lu  that  day  ye  shall   know  that  I  am  in  my 

21  Father,  and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  He  that  hath 
my  commandments,  and  keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that 
loveth  me :  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be  loved  of 
my  Father,  and  I  will  love  him,  and  will  manifest 

the  world  unfit  for  the  vision  '  beholdeth  no  longer.'  But  the  disci- 
ples, one  with  Him  not  only  in  His  humiliation  but  in  His  'glory,'  be- 
hold Ijim,  first  from  time  to  time  with  the  eye  of  sense,  always  with  the 
eye  of  faith  and  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit.  It  need  only  be  further 
remarked  that  this  intensifying  of  the  meaning  of  the  second  '  behold  ' 
may  be  indicated  by  the  order  of  the  original,  which  gives  the  place 
of  emphasis  to  the  word  in  the  second  clause  ;  and  that,  by  the  view 
now  taken,  we  at  once  see  the  connection  of  the  words  that  follow  : 
only  the  '  living'  can  behold  the  risen  Lord,  or  have  the  abiding  spirit- 
ual sight. — Because  I  live  and  ye  shall  live.  Not,  '  Because  I 
live  ye  shall  live  also,' — which  would  divert  the  thoughts  to  something 
entirely  foreign  to  the  course  of  our  Lord's  remai'ks ;  but,  '  Because  I 
live  glorified,  and  ye,  in  this  respect  wholly  diiferent  from  the  world, 
shall  live  in  the  power  of  Me,  your  risen  Lord,  therefore  shall  this  in- 
timacy of  intercourse,  implied  in  My  coming  and  your  beholding,  last 
unbroken  and  for  ever.' 

Ver.  20.  Not  the  particular  day  of  the  resurrection,  or  of  Pente- 
cost, or  of  the  Second  Coming,  but  the  day  beginning  with  the  return 
of  Jesus  to  His  Father,  when  He  shall  send  to  His  disciples  the  pro- 
mised Advocate  the  Spirit  of  the  truth.  Then  in  the  knowledge  of 
ever-deepening  experience  they  shall  know  that  the  Son  of  man 
whom  they  had  thought  *  gone  away '  is  really  in  the  bosom  of  His 
Father,  glorified  in  the  Father  (comp.  chap.  13  :  31),  that  they  are  in 
Him  thus  glorified,  and  that  He  thus  glorified  is  in  them.  So  shall 
the  end  of  all  be  attained,  the  perfect  union  in  glory  of  Father,  Son, 
and  all  believers,  in  one  uninterrupted,  unchanging,  eternal  unity 
(comp.  17  :  21,  23).  It  is  of  great  importance  to  note  the  expression, 
'Ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you.'  We  cannot  here  follow  out  the  thought, 
but  we  must  not  fail  to  notice  that  the  fulness  of  the  union  referred  to 
belongs  only  to  the  time  of  Jesus  glorified.  The  limiting  influences  of 
the  world,  of  the  flesh,  must  be  overpassed  before  that  perfect  union 
of  all  existence  is  reached  which  can  be  established  only  (for  *  God  is 
Spirit,'  4:  24)  where  the  Spirit  is  the  dominating,  all-embracing,  all- 
controlling  element  of  being.  Jesus  says  '  my  Father,'  not  '  the 
Father,'  because  His  personal  union  with  the  Father  forms  the  basis 
of  the  wider  and  more  glorious  union  here  referred  to. 

Ver.  21.  The  thought  of  pi'ivilege  in  ver.  14  led  to  that  condition 
on  which  alone  privilege  can  be  preserved  (ver.  15).  We  have  a  simi- 
lar transition  now.  Here,  as  there,  one  thing  must  be  dfstinctly  re- 
membered, that  this  unity  is  one  of  love.  There  is  love  on  the  part 
of  the  believer  to  his  Lord,  love  on  the  part  of  the  Father  to  the  be- 


14:  22-24.]  JOHN  XIV.  317 

22  myself  unto  him.  Judas  (not  Iscariot)  saith  unto  him, 
Lord,  what  is  come  to  pass  that  thou  wilt  manifest 

23  thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto  the  world  ?  Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  him.  If  a  man  love  me,  he 
will  keep  my  word  :  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and 
we. will  come  unto  him,   and  make  our  abode  with 

24  him.  He  that  loveth  me  not  keepeth  not  my  words ; 
and  the  word  which  ye  hear  is  not  mine,  but  the 
Father's  who  sent  me. 

liever,  love  on  the  part  of  Jesus  to  the  believer.  In  this  fellowship 
of  love  the  result  of  all  will  be  the  manifestation  by  Himself  of  the 
glorified  Redeemei'  to  His  people.  He  will  '  manifest '  Himself  from 
His  glory,  and  in  knowing  and  seeing  Him  by  the  power  of  the 
Spirit  they  will  know  and  see  the  Father.  A  third  difficulty  arises  in 
the  breast  of  Judas. 

Yer.  22.  Judas  is  distinguished  from  the  traitor,  that  we  may  have 
kept  distinctly  before  us  that  the  latter  had  gone  out  (13:  30).  His 
error  consists  in  not  seeing  that  the  spiritual  can  only  be  apprehended 
by  the  spiritual.  Filled  with  the  thought  of  the  external  kingdom, 
he  cannot  understand  why  the  glorious  revelation  of  Christ  to  be  made 
to  himself  and  his  fellow  disciples  should  not  be  made  to  all,  so  that 
all  may  believe  and  be  blessed. 

Ver.  23.  Again  the  thought  of  ver.  15,  and  a  fuller  expression  of 
the  main  teaching  of  this  chapter,  and,  indeed,  of  this  whole  section 
of  the  Gospel.  The  answer  to  Judas  is,  that  the  manifestation  re- 
ferred to  must  be  limited,  because  it  can  only  be  made  where  there  is 
that  communion  of  love  which  proves  itself  by  the  spirit  of  sdf-denial 
and  submission  to  the  charge  of  Jesus  (comp.  vers.  17,  21).  Two  ad- 
ditional points  are  to  be  noted — (1)  The  climax:  no  longer  'I'  but 
'We,'  a  fuller  presentation  of  the  truth.  (2)  The  beginning  of  the 
discourse  is  taken  up  again,  and  thus  its  parts  are  more  closely  united : 
'  In  my  Father's  house  are  many  places  of  abode '  (ver.  2)  ;  '  We  will 
make  our  abode  with  him.' 

Ver.  24.  A  fuller  explanation  than  before  why  the  world  cannot  re- 
ceive the  manifestation  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  given  now 
from  the  negative  rather  than  the  positive  side.  It  will  be  observed 
that  in  vers.  23,  24,  we  have  first  'word,'  then  'words,'  and  then, 
again,  a  return  to  the  singular  '  word.'  The  explanation  may  in  part 
be  that  to  him  who  receives  in  faith  the  '  words '  of  Jesus  are  one ; 
he  sees  their  unity:  they  are  a  'word:'  to  him  who  receives  not  in 
faith  they  are  scattered  and  unconnected,  '  words '  not  a  '  word.'  We 
remark  only  further  that  our  Lord,  while  implying  in  vers.  23  and  24 
that  the  world  cannot  receive  such  a  manifestation  of  the  Father  and 
of  Himself  as  had  been  promised  to  His  own,  shows  with  equal  dis- 


318  JOHN  XIV.  [14 :  25,  26. 

25  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  while  yet 

26  abiding  with  you.  But  the  ^  Comforter,  even  the  Holy 
Spirit,  Avhom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he 
shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remem- 

1  Or,  Advocate.    Or,  Helper.    Gr.  Paraclete. 

tinctness  that  there  is  no  class  favored  in  an  arbitrary  manner.  All 
make  themselves  what  they  are.  If  'anyone,'  He  says,  'loves  me;' 
and,  again,  '  he  that  loveth  me.'  Every  one  may  come  and  have  the 
promise  in  all  its  fulness. 

Ver.  25.  We  now  enter  upon  a  new  part  of  the  discourse,  in  which 
the  leading  idea  is  the  strength  to  be  afforded  to  the  disciples  after  the 
departure  of  their  Lord.  It  is  important  to  notice  that  this  is  be- 
stowed upon  them  not  merely  as  disciples,  but  as  disciples  about  to  be 
sent  forth  to  occupy  their  Master's  place,  and  to  do  His  work.  During 
the  absence  of  their  Master  the  Advocate  shall  be  with  them. 

Ver.  26.  Again  we  meet  with  the  expression  '  in  my  name,'  con- 
sidered at  ver.  13,  where  we  saw  that  it  primarily  refers  to  the  name 
'  Son,'  and  then  to  the  revelation  of  the  Father  in  the  Son.  This  con- 
ception suits  each  of  those  nine  places  in  chaps.  14-17,  where  the 
words  occur,  as]well  as  the  two  others  in  chap.  17,  where  Jesus  speaks 
of  manifesting 'or  declaring  the  'name'  of  God,  Here  the  Father 
sends  the  Holy  Spirit  '  in  the  name '  of  Jesus  ;  that  is,  the  sending  of 
the  Spirit  is  grounded  in  the  Father's  revelation  of  Himself  in  the 
Son.  It  is  because  in  Him  He  reveals  Himself  to  us  as  our  Father, 
because  He  makes  us  by  faith  in  Him  His  own  sons,  that  we  are 
brought  into  that  relation  to  Him  which  enables  us  to  receive  the  ful- 
ness of  His  Spirit.  In  this  verse,  as  contrasted  with  verse  16,  we 
have  not  merely  a  promise  of  the  Spirit  of  the  truth.  There  is  an  ad- 
vance of  thought,  and  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  in  His  training  power,  as 
He  applies  to  the  heart  '  the  truth '  which  is  His  being.  Several  par- 
ticulars in  the  words  before  us  illustrate  this.  First,  there  is  the  epi- 
thet 'holy,'  which  here,  as  throughout  this  Gospel,  expresses  the  idea 
of  complete  separation  from  all  that  is  of  the  world,  and  complete  con- 
secration to  all  that  is  spiritual  and  heavenly  (comp.  chaps.  3  :  34  ; 
10:  36).  Secondly,  the  Father  is  to  'send'  the  Spirit  to  the  disciples 
even  as  He  has  sent  the  Son  (ver.  24),  a  statement  indicating  that  He 
is  sent  to  be  in  them  for  a  similar  purpose.  And  lastly,  the  '  all 
things  '  that  the  Spirit  is  to  teach  must  (according  to  the  rules  sug- 
gested by  the  climactic  structure  of  our  Gospel)  be  included  in  the  'all 
things'  spoken  by  Jesus,  and  now  to  be  brought  to  their  remembrance. 
What  Jesus  taught  shall  be  the  'all  things'  that  are  taught;  can 
they  be  taught  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  be  again  spoken  for  the 
salvation  of  men  ?  In  the  words  of  Jesus  'all  things'  needed  for 
man's  salvation  are  implicitly  contained,  and  with  that  teaching  the 
disciples  shall  be  filled.  These  considerations  lead  directly  to  the 
conclusion,  that  Jesus  is  now  dealing  with   His  disciples  not  as  sim- 


14:  27-30.]  JOHN  XIV.  319 

27  brance  all  that  I  said  unto  you.  Peace  I  leave  with 
you ;  my  peace  I  give  unto  you  :  not  as  the  world 
giveth,  give  I  unto  you.     Let  not  your  heart  be  trou- 

28  bled  ;  neither  let  it  be  fearful.  Ye  heard  how  I  said 
to  you,  I  go  away,  and  I  come  unto  you.  If  ye  loved 
me,  ye  would  have  rejoiced,  because  I  go  unto  the 

29  Father :  for  the  Father  is  greater  than  I.  And  now 
I  have  told  you  before  it  come  to  pass,  that,  when  it 

30  is  come  to  pass,  ye  may  believe.     I   will  no  more 

ply  believers  in  His  name,  but  as  persons  about  to  enter  on  His 
work. 

Ver.  27.  The  peace  spoken  of  here  is  not  the  legacy  of  a  dying 
father,  but  the  salutation  of  a  departing  Master.  It  is  thus  not  mere 
peace  of  heart,  a  pacified  conscience,  the  result  of  a  personal  resting  in 
the  love  of  God.  It  is  peace  in  the  midst  of  the  trials  which  the  world 
brings  on  the  followers  of  Jesus  while  they  perform  their  task;  peace 
that  is  the  result  of  His  having  'overcome  the  world'  (comp.  on  chap. 
16 :  83).  *  My'  peace,  again,  is  the  peace  which  Jesus  Himself  enjoys 
as  well  as  that  which  He  alone  can  give ;  this  peace  becomes  the  true 
possession  of  the  receiver  (comp.  on  chap.  17:  14).  The  effect  is  that 
the  disciples  shall  neither  be  'troubled'  from  within,  nor  'afraid' 
with  a  coward  terror  in  the  presence  of  outward  foes. 

Ver.  28.  But  the  disciples  were  not  only  to  have  peace ;  true  love 
would  fill  their  hearts  with  joy.  The  'going  away'  of  Jesus  is  really 
a  '  going  unto  the  Father,'  a  re-establishment  in  all  the  glory  of  the 
Father's  immediate  presence.  The  last  clause  of  the  verse  contains 
simply  the  general  teaching  of  the  Gospel,  of  the  whole  Bible,  and  of 
all  the  greatest  theologians  of  the  Church,  that  the  Son,  while  of  the 
same  nature  as  the  Father,  is  subordinate  to  Him,  inferior  (for  essence 
is  not  spoken  of)  economically,  as  Mediator.  While,  however,  the 
departure  of  Jesus  was  thus  a  return  to  the  glory  of  the  Father's 
presence,  and  good  for  Him,  we  must  not  suppose  that  it  is  on  that 
account  that  the  disciples  are  to  'rejoice.'  '  If  ye  loved  me'  is  not  an 
appeal  to  their  personal  interest  in  Himself;  it  appeals  rather  to  their 
interest  in  His  work  and  purpose;  it  is  a  statement  of  the  fact  that 
ripened  Christian  perception,  when  they  stand  in  the  'love'  spoken  of 
in  vers.  21,  23,  24,  will  lead  them  to  see  that  the  departure  of  Jesus 
to  His  Father  was  an  arrangement  fraught  with  far  higher  blessings, 
both  to  His  believing  people  and  to  the  world,  than  His  remaining 
among  them  would  have  been.  The  love  which  is  the  condition  of 
higher  revelations  will  teach  them  that  the  departure  preliminary  to 
these  is  not  a  matter  of  sorrow,  but  of  joy. 

Ver.  29.  It  is  not  a  first  faith,  but  the  deeper  working  of  faith, 
the  experimental  seal  to  it,  that  is  spoken  of. 

Ver.  30.     I  will  no  longer  talk  much  with  you,  for  the 


320  JOHN  XIV.  [14:  31. 

speak  much  with  you,  for  the  prince  of  the  world 
31  Cometh:  and  he  hath  nothing  in  me;  but  that  the 
world  may  know  that  I  love  the  Father,  and  as  the 
Father  gave  me  commandment,  even  so  I  do.  Arise, 
let  us  go  hence. 

prince  of  the  world  cometh.  (Comp.  on  12:  31.)  'The  prince 
of  this  world '  is  equivalent  to  the  world  in  its  essence.  He  embodies 
the  spirit  of  the  world,  so  that  what  is  said  of  it  may  be  said  of  him, 
■what  is  said  of  him  may  be  said  of  it.  Observe  the  '  cometh,'  the  con- 
trast of  the  '  coming '  of  Jesus. — And  he  hath  nothing  in  me. 
Ver.  31.  But  he  cometh  that  the  -world  may  perceive  that 
I  love  the  Father,  and  that  even  as  the  Father  gave  me 
commandment  so  I  do.  Arise,  let  us  go  hence.  The  diffi- 
culty of  interpreting  these  words  is  very  great.  The  common  inter- 
pretations of  'hath  nothing  in  me' — such  as,  'hath  no  power  over 
me,'  I  die  fi-eely;  'hath  no  ground  of  accusation  against  me,'  I  am 
innocent ;  '  hath  no  hold  on  me,'  I  present  no  point  on  which  h^  can 
fasten  his  attack — are  all  at  variance  with  the  meaning  of  the  verb 
'hath'  in  the  writings  of  John.  The  true  interpretation  seems  to  be 
that  thei'e  is  an  absolute  barrier  between  the  '  prince  of  this  world ' 
and  Jesus.  Neither  in  the  Person  (in  whom,  is  no  sin)  ^or  in  the 
work  of  the  Redeem-er  has  he  any  interest ;  thei^e  is'  absolutely  no 
point  of  connection  (the  expression  of  the  original  is  strong)  between 
him  and  these.  He  has  deliberately  opposed,  denied  and  rejected  the 
truth.  Therefore  he  has  now  nothing  to  do  with  it — except  in  one  terri- 
ble respect!  The  following  words  point  out  the  exception.  He 
'comes,'  and  the  'World'  ruled  by  Him  comes,  to  see  that  He  whom 
thef  have  rejected  is  the  'consecrated  One'  of  God,  the  'Sent'  of 
God,  the  Fulfiller  of  the  Father's  will.  But  they  come  to  see  this  only 
when  it  is  too  late ;  when  amazement  and  horror  alone  remain  for 
them;  when  the  judgment  shall  be  executed ;  and  when  out  of  their 
own  mouth  they  shall  be  condemned.  The  words  in  short  express, 
although  far  more  pointedly  than  elsewhere,  the  great  truth  so  often 
stated  in  Scripture,  that  those  who  reject  the  salvation  shall  meet  the 
judgment  of  Jesus,  and  that,  when  they  meet  it,  they  shall  acknow- 
ledge that  it  is  just.  Blind  now,  they  shall  not  be  always  blind;  their 
eyes  shall  be  opened ;  and  to  their  own  shame,  they  shall  confess 
that  He  whom  they  rejected  was  the  'Beloved'  of  the  Father,  and 
that  His  work  was  the  doing  of  the  Father's  will.  Hence  the  startling 
close  of  the  discourse:  'Arise,  let  us  go  hence.'  Not  merely:  '  Let  us 
meanwhile  arise,  and  leave  this  place  that  we  may  go  to  another, 
where  my  discourse  may  be  resumed ;'  but,  '  Let  us  go :  I  have  led 
you  to  the  glorious  places  of  abode  in  my  Father's  house,  and  I  have 
followed  the  world  to  its  doom ;  I  have  traced  the  history  of  mankind 
to  its  close ;  it  is  over ;  arise,  let  us  go  hence.' 


15 :  1.]  JOHN  XV.  321 

,  . . > 

It  is  not  e€isy  to  determine  with  certainty  at  what  moment,  or  even  in  what  place 
the  discourse  which  we  have  been  considering  was  spoken.  As  to  the  latter  point, 
indeed,  the  closing  words  of  the  chapter  do  not  leave  much  doubt.  Jesus  and  His 
disciples  must  still  have  been  in  the  upper  chamber,  where  the  fc'upper  was  instituted. 
The  precise  moment  is  more  difficult  to  fix.  Yet,  when  we  turn  to  Luke  22 :  o5-:i8, 
we  find  there  words  of  Jesus  so  obviously  connected  with  the  topics  handled  here 
thn.t  we  may,  with  great  probability,  suppose  that  both  belong  to  the  same  period  of 
that  night.  If  so,  the  discourse  in  the  present  chapter  was  delivered  after  the  Supper 
was  instituted,  and  before  our  Lord  rose  from  the  table.  We  may  further  express  our 
belief  that  the  discourse  in  chaps.  15  and  16  was  spoken  in  the  same  place,  the  dififer- 
ence  being  that  during  its  delivery,  as  well  as  during  the  intercessory  prayer  of  chap. 
17,  Jesus  and  His  disciples  stood.  Not  only  is  chap.  18 :  1  (hardly  permitting  us  to 
think  of  a 'going  forth'  till  after  'He  had  spoken  these  things)  favorable  to  this 
view,  but  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  chaps.  15-17  could  have  been  uttered  on  the 
way  to  Gethf-emane.  The  tone  of  thought,  too,  in  chaps.  15  and  16  appears  to  be  in 
harmony  with  this  conception  of  the  circumstances.  We  shall  see  in  the  exposition 
how  much  more  the  idea  of  apostolic  action  and  suffering  comes  out  in  these  chapters 
than  it  does  even  in  chap.  14.  To  this  corresponded  the  attitude  of  rising  and  stand- 
ing. The  appropriate  demands  of  the  moment,  therefore,  and  not  any  change  of 
intention,  led  to  our  Lord's  still  continuing  in  the  upper  room.  He  stands  there  with 
the  solemnized  group  around  Him.  'I  have  given  you,'  He  would  say  by  action  aa 
well  as  word,  'My  commission  and  My  promise;  let  us  be  up  and  doing;  there  ia 
still  deeper  meaning  in  the  commission,  still  greater  richness  in  the  promise.' 

Chapter  15:  1—16:  33. 

Jesus  J  alone  with  His  Disciples,  Finishes  His  Last  Conso- 
latory Discourse, 

1      I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my  Father  is  the  husband- 
Jesus,  alone  with  His  Disciples,  Finishes  Eis  Last  Consolatory  Discourse, 
Chap.  15  :  1-16  :  33. 

Contexts.— The  solemnity  of  the  moment,  the  fulness  of  Old  Testament  thought 
which  dwelt  in  the  mind  of  Jesus,  perhaps  even  a  reminiscence  of  that  'fruit  of  the 
vine  '  of  which  they  had  all  so  recently  partaken,  are  enough  to  account  for  the  lan- 
guage with  which  our  l^ord  begins  this  second  part  of  His  last  discourse.  It  is  of 
more  importance  to  observe  that  it  is  distinguished  trom  what  goes  before,  not  so 
much  by  presenting  us  with  matter  entirely  new,  as  by  applying  the  same  line  of  in- 
struction in  an  advanced  form  to  the  advanced  position  in  which  the  disciples  are  sup- 
posed to  be.  In  chap.  14  the  main  thought  is  that  of  the  true  union  brought  about  by  the 
apparent  separation ;  the  chief  reference  has  been  to  personal  experience ;  and  the 
climax  is  reached  in  vers.  20  and  2.3.  That  is  the  preparation  of  the  disciples  for  their 
work  ;  they  '  are  '  iu  Him,  and  He  in  them.  The  chief  thought  now  is  that  of  '  abi- 
ding,', and  this  abiding  presupposes  difficulty  and  trial.  '  Being  in  Ilim  is  life ;  '  abl- 
d.ng  iu  H^m  is  life  working,  triumphiug.    The  alvance  from  chap.  U  to  chaps.  15 

21 


322  JOHN  XV.  [15:2. 

2  man.  Every  branch  in  me  that  beareth  not  fruit, 
he  taketh  it  away :  and  every  branch  that  beareth 
fruit  he  cleanseth  it,  that  it   may  bear   more  fruit. 

and  16  consists  in  the  application  of  principles  rather  than  in  any  change  from  one 
eet  of  principles  to  another.  The  subordinate  parts  of  the  section  are — (1)  chap.  15, 
vers.  1-17  ;  (2)  vers.  18-27  ;  (3)  chap.  16,  vers.  1-11 ;  (4)  vers.  12-15  ;  (5)  vers.  16  24  j 
(6)  vers.  25-33. 

(The  allegory  of  the  Vine  and  the  Branches — the  second  of  the  two  paroimise  in 
John,  the  other  being  that  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  chap.  10,  illustrates  under  the  figure 
of  the  noblest  of  fruit-bearing  plants  the  precious  truth  of  the  life-uniou'of  believers 
with  Christ,  the  only  source  of  spiritual  life  and  fruitfulness.  Paul  illustrates  the 
same  idea  by  the  vital  relation  of  the  head  to  the  members.  The  two  parabolic  dis- 
courses on  Christ  the  Shepherd,  and  Christ  the  Vine  impressed  themselves  deeply  on 
the  mind  of  the  ancient  Church,  aiid  furnished  the  material  for  the  first  allegorical 
representations  of  the  Saviour.  The  finest  and  most  frequent  pictures  in  the  Roman 
catacombs  are  those  of  a  youthful  Shepherd  carrying  a  lamb  in  his  arms  or  on  his 
shoulder,  and  of  a  lu.xuriant  vine  sending  life  and  vigor  in  all  its  branches  and  making 
them  bear  abundant  fruit. — P.  S.] 

Ver.  1.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  vine  is  the  type  of  Israel,  planted 
by  the  Almighty  as  the  husbandman  to  adorn,  refresh,  and  quicken 
the  earth  (Ps.  80;  Isa.  5 :  1;  Jer.  2 :  21 ;  Ezek.  19:  10;  HosealO: 
1).  But  Israel  proved  itself  '  the  degenerate  plant  of  a  strange  vine.' 
Jesus,  therefore,  is  here  the  '  true  vine,'  because  He  is  the  true  Israel 
of  God,  in  whom  is  fulfilled  all  that  is  demanded  of  the  true  vine, 
whether  for  beauty  and  blessing  to  the  world,  or  for  glory  to  the  hus- 
bandman. In  Him  all  His  people  are  summed  up.  He  is  not  merely 
the  stem:  He  is  'the  vine,'  including  in  Himself  all  its  parts.  He  is 
thus  also  the  'true'  (comp.  on  chap.  1:  9)  vine,  in  contrast  not  so 
much  with  a  degenerate  Israel  within  as  with  Israel  after  the  flesh  as 
a  whole,  With  the  ancient  Theocracy  even  in  its  best  and  palmiest 
days.  That  Theocracy  had  been  no  more  than  a  shadow  of  the  true;  • 
now  the  'true'  was  come,  and  God  Himself  had  planted  it. 

Ver.  2.  Two  parts  of  the  husbandman's  operations  with  his  vine 
are  here  alluded  to,  the  first  that  of  taking  away  unfruitful  branches. 
Any  branch  of  the  vine  that  is  found,  and  as  soon  as  it  is  found,  to 
be  not  fruit-bearing  is  cut  off.  It  is  probable  that  the  allusion  is  pri- 
marily to  Judas  (comp.  17:  12),  but  thereafter  to  all  of  whom  the 
traitor  is  the  representative,  who.  taking  their  places  for  a  time  in  the 
number  of  the  disciples,  prove  by  the  result  that  they  have  no  right 
to  be  there  (comp.  1  John  2:  19).  They  are  branches  of  the  vine; 
but,  as  only  outward  and  carnal  not  inward  and  spiritual,  they  are 
taken  away,  their  further  fate  being  not  yet  mentioned.  \The  second 
part  of  the  husbandman's  work  follows,  that  of  pruning,  for  which 
the  word  cleansing,  with  its  deeper  meaning,  is  appropriately  used. 


15 :  S-5.:i  JOHN  XV.  323 

3  Already  ye  are   clean    because   of  the  word  which 

4  I  haye  spoken  unto  you.  Abide  in  me,  and  I  in  you. 
As  the  branch  cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it 
abide  in  the  yine ;  so  neither  can  ye,  except  ye  abide 

5  in  me.     I  am  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches  :  He  that 

The  object  of  the  Father  is  the  inward,  spiritual,  cleansing  of 
His  children,  in  contrast  with  the  outward  purifications  of  Israel 
(2:  6  ;  3:  25);  and  the  cleansing  spoken  of  (which  follows,  not  pre- 
cedes, their  fruit-bearing)  is  future  and  continuous.  The  means  are 
afflictions,  not  of  any  kind  but  for  the  sake  of  Jesus,  here  especially 
the  afflictions  to  which  the  disciples  shall  be  exposed  in  doing  their 
Master's  work,  as  He  Himself  '  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which 
He  suffered.'  The  attaining  of  this  perfection  is,  however,  a  gi"adual 
process,  and  hence  the  words  '  that  it  may  bear  more  fruit.'  It  is  pos- 
sible that  the  'fruit'  to  be  borne  may  include  all  Christian  graces, 
although  it  would  seem  as  if  the  general  growth  of  the  Christian  life 
were  rather  set  forth  in  the  growth  and  strengthening  of  the  'branch.' 
The  considerations  already  adduced,  and  the  whole  strain  of  the  dis- 
course, lead  us  rather  to  understand  by  the  'fruit'  now  spoken  of 
fruit  borne  in  carrying  on  the  work  of  Jesus  in  the  world  (comp.  on 
ver.  16). 

Ver.  3.  On  'word,'  not  'words,'  see  on  chap.  14:  24.  The  'ye'  is 
emphatic.  Theij  were  pruned,  they  were  'clean;'  and  that 'already,' 
because  they  had  already  received  the  word  which  they  were  now,  in 
their  turn,  to  communicate.  Jesus  does  not  say  that  they  are  clean 
'through,'  but  'because  of  the  word  which  He  had  spoken  unto  them. 
They  have  heard  (and  received)  the  word  of  'the  Holy  One  of  God,' 
and  because  His  word  is  in  them  th«y  are  clean.  Thus  are  they  fitted 
for  imparting  the  means  of  a  like  cleansing  to  others.  Not  personal 
piety  but  Christian  action  is  still  in  view,  and  still  the  'cleanness' 
which  they  possess  does  not  exclude  the  future  and  continuous 
cleansing. 

Ver.  4.  Thus  cleansed,  one  thing  more  is  required,  that  they  main- 
tain their  position,  that  they  continue  in  the  vine.  It  is  the  law  of 
the  branch  that,  if  it  is  to  flourish  and  bear  fruit,  there  must  be  a  con- 
stant and  reciprocal  action  between  it  and  the  vine  of  which  it  is  a 
part.  This  is  expre  sed  in  the  two  clauses  before  us.  He  who  will 
not  abide  in  Christ  cannot  have  Christ  to  abide  in  him.  How  much 
is  made  dependent  upon  the  human  will ! 

Ver.  5.  The  transition  from  ver.  4  to  ver.  5  appears  to  be  similar  to 
that  from  chap.  5:  19-23  to  chap.  5:  24, — a  transition  from  the  prin- 
ciple to  its  application  to  men.  In  substance  the  lesson  is  the  same 
as  before ;  and  it  has  only  to  be  distinctly  observed  that  the  words 
♦ye  can  do  nothing'  refer  to  the  efforts  of  one  already  a  believer. 
The  state  of  faith  is  presupposed. 


324  JOHN  XV.  [15:6-8. 

abideth  in  me,  and  I  in  him,  the  same  beareth  much 

6  fruit :  for  apart  from  me  ye  can  do  nothing.  If  a  man 
abide  not  in  me,  he  is  cast  forth  as  a  branch,  and  is 
withered ;  and  they  gather  them,  and  cast  them  into 

7  the  fire,  and  they  are  burned.  If  ye  abide  in  me,  and 
my  words  abide  in  you,  ask  whatsoever  ye  will,  and 

8  it  shall  be  done   unto   you.     Herein  ^  is  my  Father 

1  Or,  iDos. 

Ver.  6.  If  any  one  abide  not  in  me,  etc.  '  The  branch  '  here 
is  simply  '  the  branch  '  of  ver.  4,  the  branch  considered  in  itself:  the 
words  '  cast  forth  '  and  '  is  withered  '  are  so  used  in  the  original  as  to 
denote  the  certainty,  the  immediateness,  of  the  doom  referred  to ;  the 
last  three  ^rerbs  of  the  verse  carry  our  thoughts  to  a  later  period  than 
that  to  which  ihe  casting  out  and  the  withering  belong.  Instead  of  ex- 
hibiting beauty  of  leaf  and  bearing  clusters  of  fruit,  these  branches 
shrivel  up,  die,  and  are  consumed.  It  is  to  be  observed  that,  although 
the  branches  spoken  of  are  barren,  it  is  not  their  barrenness  that  is 
the  immediate  thought  here,  but  the  fact  that  they  do  not  abide  in  the 
vine. 

Ver.  7.  The  sudden  departure  in  this  verse  from  the  figure  which 
our  Lord  had  been  employing  is  worthy  of  notice.  A  somewhat  simi- 
lar departure  occurs  at  ver.  3,  and  in  both  cases  it  takes  place  in  con- 
nection with  a  reference  to  the  '  word'  or  '  sayings'  of  Jesus:  these 
belong  to  living  men.  The  thought  that  the  ♦  sayings '  of  Jesus  abide 
in  us  as  the  condition  of  blessedness  is  fundamentally  the  same  as 
that  expressed  previously  in  ver,  3,  '  because  of  the  word  ;'  the  mode 
in  which  the  word  works  is  now  more  fully  brought  out.  Still  more 
worthy  of  notice  is  the  fact  that,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  where 
the  asking  is  spoken  of,  the  words  '  in  My  name '  do  not  occur  ;  but 
in  their  place  we  find,  '  If  ye  abide  in  Me,  and  My  sayings  abide  in 
ycu.'  This  strikingly  illustrates  what  we  have  already  endeavored  to 
bring  out,  that  '  in  My  name '  implies  a  union  with  Jesus  by  faith, 
resting  on  a  knowledge  of  and  adherence  to  the  revelation  that  He  has 
given.  The  asking  spoken  of  must  be  understood  not  in  a  general 
sense,  but  with  a  special  reference  to  bearing  fruit.  Were  this  not  the 
case  the  verse  would  be  quite  isolated 

Ver.  8.  Herein  was  my  Father  glorified,  that  ye  might 
bear  much  fruit  and  become  my  disciples.  The  last  verse  had 
expressed  the  highest  and  closest  communion  that  can  be  established 
between  the  believer  and  the  Father  revealed  in  the  Son, — a  commun- 
ion so  high,  so  close,  that  the  former  asks  whatsoever  he  will  and  it  is 
done  unto  him.  But  that  is  the  attainment  of  all  God's  purposes, 
the  issue  of  all  His  dealings,  with  His  people.  The  '  Herein  '  of  this 
verse  is,  accordingly,  not  to  be  explained  by  the  words  that  follow,  as 


15 :  9, 10.]  ■  JOHN  XV.  825 

glorified,  Hhat  ye  bear  much  fruit ;  and  so  shall  ye  be 

9  my  disciples.     Even  as  the  Father  hath  loved  me,  I 

10  also  have  loved  you  :    abide  ye  in  my  love.     If  ye 

keep  my  commandments,  ye  shall  abide  in  my  love ; 

even  as  I  have  kept  my  Father's  commandments,  and 

1  Many  ancient  authorities  read  that  ye  bear  muchfi-vit  and  be  my  disciples. 

if  the  meaning  were  that  the  glory  of  God  is  found  in  His  appointing 
His  people  to  bear  much  fruit  and  be  disciples  of  Jesus.  That  is  the 
result  of  His  purpose  rather  than  the  purpose  itself.  The  purpose  is 
union,  communion,  fellowship  ;  and  out  of  these  flows  an  ever-in- 
creasing bearing  of  fruit  {'much  fruit'),  and  an  ever-growing  conform- 
ity ('become'  not  'be')  of  the  believer  with  his  Lord,  alike  in  privi- 
lege and  in  life.  '  Herein  was  my  Father  glorified '  belongs,  therefore, 
to  the  previous  verse, — to  that  abiding  in  Jesus,  and  that  asking  and 
receiving  in  Him,  which  expressed  the  purpose  of  the  Father  (comp. 
14  :  13).  At  the  point  we  have  reached  this  is  supposed  to  be  accom- 
plished, and  as  a  consequence  of  such  abiding  fellowship  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son  comes  the  growing  fruitfulness,  the  deepening  dis- 
cipleship,  of  those  who  are  true  branches  of  the  fruitful  vine.  Hence 
the  rendering  '  was  glorified'  seems  preferable  to  '  is  glorified'  which 
we  retain  in  chap.  13:  31.  It  is  an  ideal  state  of  things  with  which 
we  are  dealing ;  and  the  much  fruit  and  the  discipleship  referred  to  do 
not  belong  only  to  the  present,  but,  like  the  '  cleanness '  spoken  of  in 
ver.  3,  are  also  future  and  continuous. 

Ver.  9.  Even  as  the  Father  loved  me,  I  also  loved  you : 
abide  in  my  love.  By  keeping  in  view  what  has  been  said  on  ver. 
8  we  shall  understand  the  transition  here  to  the  thought  of  love.  The 
main  thought  of  that  verse  was,  as  we  have  seen,  that  of  union  and 
communion  with  the  Father  and  the  Son ;  but  the  main  element  of 
that  communion  is  love, — love  which  flows  forth  from  the  Father  to 
the  Son,  and  then  from  the  Son  to  the  members  of  His  body,  thus 
forming  that  community  of  love  so  often  spoken  of  in  these  chapters. 

Ver.  10.  The  disciples  have  heard  the  words  '  abide  in  my  love.' 
How  are  they  to  do  so  ?  The  words  before  us  are  an  answer  to  the 
question ;  and  they  constitute  a  parallel  to  those  which  we  have  al- 
ready met  at  14:  20,  21,  only  that  now  we  read  not  merely  of  'being,' 
but  of  '  abiding,'  the  characteristic  word  of  this  chapter.  It  is  not 
simply  the  doing  of  special  commandments  that  is  thought  of  (comp. 
on  13:  34),  but  a  complete  adoption  of  the  Father's  will  by  the  Son 
and  of  the  Son's  will  by  us :  and  this  is  not  spoken  of  as  a  proof  of 
love,  but  as  the  condition  which  makes  continued  love  possible.  The  Fa- 
ther never  ceases  to  love  the  Son,  because  the  Son's  will  is  the  ex- 
pression of  His  own.  The  Son"  never  ceases  to  love  His  disciples,  be- 
cause their  will  is  the  expression  of  His  will ;  and  without  this  har- 
mony of  will  and  act  union  and  fellowship  are  impossible. 


S26  JOHN  XV.  [15:11-14. 

11  abide  in  his  love.     These  things  have  I  spoken  unto 
you,  that  my  joy  may  be  in  you,  and  that  your  joy  may 

12  be  fulfilled.     This  is  my  commandment,  that  ye  love 

13  one  another,  even  as  I  have  loved  you.     Greater  love 
hath  no  man  than  this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life 

14  for  his  friends.  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  the  things 

Ver.  11.  3Iy  joy  must  be  interpreted  in  the  same  way  as  *  My 
peace'  at  14:  27.  It  is  the  joy  which  Jesus  possessed  as  'anointed 
with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  His  fellows,'  which  flowed  from  His 
uninterrupted  possession  of  His  Father's  love  (ver.  9),  which  was  ever 
and  again  renewed  as  He  felt  that  He  was  accomplishing  His  Father's 
will  (ver.  10),  which  was  crowned  in  that  uninterrupted  intercourse 
with  His  Father  in  which  He  asked  and  received  whatsoever  He  de- 
sired (11  :  42),  and  which  filled  His  heart  amidst  all  the  trials  and 
sorrows  of  His  work  on  earth  (comp,  Luke  10  :  21  >.  That  very  joy 
He  will  communicate  to  His  disciples,  and  their  joy  will  be  then'ful- 
filled.'  Like  Him  who  went  before  them,  they  shall  '  see  of  the  travail 
of  their  soul  and  shall  be  satisfied.'  The  arrangement  of  the  words 
in  the  original  of  this  verse,  by  which  *  my'  is  brought  into  the  closest 
juxtaposition  with  <  in  you,'  is  worthy  of  notice  (corap.  chap.  14: 
1,3). 

Ver.  12.  The  sum  of  what  was  to  be  said  in  this  part  of  the  dis- 
course has  been  spoken.  One  point  needs  further  elucidation — love. 
It  is  here  enjoined  and  explained  anew.  The  singular  '  command- 
ment '  does  not  differ  materially  from  the  plural  of  ver.  10  (see  on 
that  verse,  and  comp.  on  14:  23,  24).  Jesus  had  loved  them  with  a 
self-sacrificing  love  ;  and  because  He  had  so  loved  them  He  charges 
them  to  live  in  self-sacrificing  love  for  one  another.  The  *  I  loved 
you'  is  not  to  be  resolved  into  *  I  have  loved  you.'  As  at  13  :  34,  it 
is  of  love  brought  back  to  their  minds  in  His  absence  that  He  speaks. 

Ver.  13.  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  that  one 
lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends.  How  great  His  love  which 
showed  itself  even  unto  death  for  them  !  They  must  imitate  such  love 
if  they  will  '  keep  His  commandment '  and  exhibit  His  spirit.  There 
is  no  contradiction  between  this  statement  and  that  in  Rom.  5  :  6-8, 
Enemies  are  not  here  in  question.  Jesus  is  alone  with  His  friends, 
and  one  friend  can  give  no  greater  proof  of  love  to  another  than  to  die 
for  him.  The  emphasis  rests  upon  'lay  down  his  life,'  not  upon 
'  friends.' 

Ver.  14.  Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  that  -which  I  com- 
mand you.  We  have  here  no  second  motive  to  the  exercise  of  broth- 
erly love,  based  upon  the  obedience  which  the  friends  of  Jesus  are 
bound  to  render  to  Him.  The  emphatic  '  Ye '  shows  clearly  that  Jesus 
would  impress  upon  them  with  peculiar  force  that  they  were  His 
friends.     We  must  accordingly  interpret  in  a  manner  similar  to  that 


15:  15,  16]  JOHN  XV.  327 

15  which  I  command  you.  Xo  longer  do  I  call  you 
^servants  ;  for  the  -servant  knoweth  not  what  his  lord 
doeth  :  but  I  have  called  you  friends ;  for  all  things 
that  I  heard  from  my  Father  I  have  made  known  unto 

16  you.  Ye  did  not  choose  me,  but  I  chose  you,  and 
appointed  you,  that  ye  should  go  and  bear  fruit,  and 
that  your  fruit  should  abide :  that  whatsoever  ye  shall 
ask  of  the  Father  in  my  name,  he  may  give  it  you. 

1  Gr.  hond-servante.  '  Gr.  hond-servcatL 

applied  at  chap.  14:  15.  The  words  describe  a  condition  or  state: 
'  Ye  are  my  friends  for  whom  in  love  /lay  down  My  life,"  and  ye  con- 
tinue such  in  being  led  by  the  power  of  My  love  to  lay  down  your 
lives  for  one  another. 

Yer,  15.  At  chap.  13  :  16  Jesus  had  spoken  of  them  as  '  servants  ;* 
and  (so  closely  connected  with  one  another  are  the  chapters  which  we 
are  considering)  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  it  is  this  very  passage  that 
He  has  now  primarily  in  view.  Then  they  had  to  learn  the  lesson  of 
the  foot-washing  :  now  it  is  learned  ;  and  animated  by  a  self-sacrific- 
ing love  like  His,  they  are  no  longer  '  servants  '  but  '  friends.'  In  one 
sense,  indeed,  they  would  be  always  'servants'  (comp.  ver.  20),  and 
in  the  other  writings  of  the  New  Testament  we  see  that  even  some  of 
those  now  listening,  as  well  as  Paul,  delighted  to  appropriate  to  them- 
selves the  title  (2  Pet.  1:1:  Apoc.  1:1;  Pvom.  1 :  1,  etc.)  ;  but  that 
is  not  their  only  relationship  to  their  Lord.  Nor  are  the  two  relation- 
ships inconsistent  with  one  another.  Pvather  may  we  say  that  the 
livelier  our  sense  of  the  privilege  of  friendship  the  deeper  will  be 
our  humility,  and  the  more  truly  we  feel  Jesus  to  be  our  '  Lord  and 
MastT  '  the  more  shall  we  be  prepared  to  enter  iuto  the  fulness  of  the 
privilege  bestowed  by  Him.  The  evidence  of  this  their  state  (or  priv- 
lege )  is  given  in  the  remainder  of  the  verse.  Jesus  had  kept  noth- 
ing back  from  them  of  all  that  He  their  Lord  was  to  '  do  :'  He  had  re- 
vealed to  them  all  the  will  of  God,  in  so  far  as  it  related  to  His  Own 
mission  and  theirs  for  the  salvation  of  men. 

Ver.  16.  He  had  not  taught  them  merely  to  fiU  their  minds  with 
knowledge.  He  had  '  heard '  from  the  Father  that  He  might  '  do.' 
They  '  hear'  that  they  may  •  do'  also.  As  the  Father,  having  taught, 
had  sent  Him,  so  He,  having  taught,  sends  them.  He  had  'chosen' 
them — a  choice  having  here  nothing  to  do  with  eternal  predestination, 
but  only  with  choosing  them  out  of  the  world  after  they  were  in  it.  He 
had  '  appointed '  them,  and  put  them  into  the  position  which  they  were 
to  occupy  on  their  post  of  duty.  The  manner  in  which  their  post  is 
described  is  important.  It  is  by  the  wonl  '  go  away,'  the  word  so  of- 
ten used  of  Jesus  Himself  in  this  part  of  the  Gospel.  They  were  to 
'go  away  ;'  that  is,  they  had  a  departure  to  make  as  well  as  He.     This 


828  JOHN  XV.  [15:  17,  18. 

17  These  things  I  command  you,  that  ye  may  love  one 

18  another.     If  the  world  hateth  you,  ^ye  know  that  it 

1  Or,  Icnow  ye. 

can  be  nothing  else  but  their  going  out  into  the  world  to  take  His 
place,  to  produce  fruit  to  the  glory  of  the  Father,  and  to  return  with 
that  fruit  to  their  Father's  house.  How  manifest  is  it  that  here  again 
we  have  to  do  with  the  fruits  of  active  Christian  labor,  not  of  private 
Christian  life ! — That  whatsoever  ye  ask  of  the  Father  in  my 
name,  he  may  give  it  you.  This  is  the  culminating-point  of  the 
climax,  taking  us  to  the  thought  of  that  intimacy  of  communion  with 
the  Father  which  secures  the  answer  to  all  our  prayers,  and  the  sup- 
ply of  all  our  needs.  Three  times  now  have  we  met  in  this  discourse 
the  promise  just  given,  and  the  attentive  reader  will  easily  perceive 
the  interesting  gradation  in  the  circumstances  in  which  those  to  whom 
it  is  successively  given  are  supposed  to  be.  At  14  :  12,  13,  they  are 
vicAved  simply  as  believers ;  at  15  :  7,  they  '  abide  in  Christ,  and  His 
sayings  abide  in  them  ;'  now  they  have  'gone  away,'  and  have  borne 
abiding  fruit.  To  each  stage  of  Christian  living  and  working  the  same 
promise  in  words  belongs,  but  the  fulness  included  in  the  words  is  de- 
pendent in  each  case  on  the  amount  of  need  to  be  supplied.  It  may 
be  questioned  how  we  are  to  understand  the  second  '  that '  of  this 
verse,  whether  as  co-ordinate  to  the  first  '  that'  and  so,  like  it,  depen- 
dent on  '  I  have  chosen  you, 'or  as  expressing  a  consequence  of  their 
bringing  forth  abiding  fruit  in  their  work  of  Christian  love.  The  lat- 
ter is  undoubtedly  to  be  prefei-red.  Jesus  chooses  out  His  disciples 
for  work  first,  for  correspondingly  higher  privilege  afterwards  ;  and 
those  who  faithfully  bear  fruit  are  here  assured  that  in  this  sphere  of 
fruit-bearing  with  all  its  difficulties,  and  temptations,  and  trials,  they 
shall  want  nothing  to  impart  courage,  boldness,  hope,  to  make  them 
overcome  the  world,  as  He  Himself  overcame  it. 

Ver.  17.  A  verse  characteristic  of  the  structure  of  this  Gospel, 
forming  like  chap.  5:  30  at  once  a  summary  (to  a  large  extent)  of 
what  has  preceded,  and  a  transition  to  what  follows.  All  the  great 
truths  spoken  by  Jesus  are  intended  to  promote  that  which  is  the  truest 
expression  of  the  Divine,  that  which  is  the  real  ground  and  end  of  all 
existence — love.  On  the  other  hand,  again,  the  mutual  love  of  be- 
lievers is  that  armor  of  proof  in  which  they  shall  be  able  best  to  with- 
stand the  hatred  of  the  world. 

Ver.  18.  If  the  -wrorld  hateth  you,  know  that  it  hath  hated 
me  before  it  hated  you.  The  active  work  of  the  disciples  always 
has  provoked,  and  always  will  provoke,  the  world's  hatred.  In  such 
a  prospect  there  is  need  for  strength;  and  strength  is  given  by  means 
of  truth  presented  in  one  of  the  double  pictures  of  our  Gospel — the 
first  extending  to  the  close  of  chap.  15,  the  second  to  chap.  16:  15. 
First  of  all,  in  that  hatred  which  they  shall  certainly  experience,  let 
them  behold  a  proof  that,  engaged  in  their  Master's  service,  they  are 


15:  19-22.]  JOHN  XV.  329 

19  hath  hated  me  before  it  hated  you.  If  ye  were  of  the 
world,  the  world  would  love  its  own  :  but  because  ye 
are  not  of  the  world,  but  I  chose  you  out  of  the  world, 

20  therefore  the  world  hateth  you.  Remember  the  word 
that  I  said  unto  you,  A  ^servant  is  not  greater  than 
his  lord.  If  they  persecuted  me,  they  will  also  per- 
secute you ;  if  they  kept  my  word,  they  will  keep 

21  yours  also.  But  all  these  things  will  they  do  unto 
you  for  my  name's  sake,  because  they  know  not  him 

22  that  sent  me.     If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto 

1  Gr.  bond-servant. 

really  filling  their  Master's  place;  and  let  them  feel  that  the  trials 
that  befell  Him  ought  surely  to  be  no  'strange  thing'  to  them.  Their 
Master,  their  Friend,  their  Redeemer,  trod  the  same  path  as  that 
which  they  must  tread.  AVhat  thought  could  be  more  touching  or 
more  full  of  comforting  and  ennobling  influences  ? 

Ver.  19.  Did  the  world  behold  in  them  its  own  offspring,  it  would 
love  them;  they  would  be  its  own.  The  rule  is  universal,  and  needed 
no  further  exposition  ;  but  they  were  not  '  of  '  the  world,  they  were 
born  of  a  new  and  higher  birth,  they  had  even  like  their  Master  to 
bear  witness  of  the  world  that  its  works  were  evil,  and  therefore  it 
must  hate  them  as  it  hated  Him  (comp,  7:  7,  and  1  Kings  22:  8). 

Ver.  20  The  word  referred  to  had  been  spoken  at  13:  IG,  in  an 
apparently  different  sense,  but  really,  alike  there  and  here,  with  the 
same  deep  oneness  of  meaning.  The  disciples  are  in  the  position  of 
their  Master,  are  one  with  Him ;  therefore  are  they  bound  to  the  same 
duties  and  exposed  to  the  same  trials.  The  parallelism  between  the 
'word'  of  Jesus  and  that  of  His  disciples  is  instructive.  Lying  at  the 
bottom  of  all  the  language  here  employed  is  the  great  truth  that  what 
He  has  been  they  are  to  be. 

Ver.  21.  Their  sufferings  shall  not  only  be  like  those  of  Jesus,  but 
*  because  of  His  name,'  because  of  all  that  is  involved  in  His  Person 
and  work — the  Person  and  the  work  which  they  continually  hold  forth 
to  men.  The  latter  part  of  the  verse  contains  at  once  an  explanation 
of  the  world's  folly  and  guilt,  and  a  striking  comment  upon  the  ful- 
ness of  meaning  involved  in  the  word  '  name.'  It  is  because  the  world 
knows  not  God  that  it  hates  alike  the  Son  and  His  disciples.  It  thinks 
that  it  knows  God,  it  has  even  a  zeal  for  His  worship;  but  the  spirit- 
uality of  His  nature,  the  love  which  is  the  essence  of  His  being,  it 
does  not  know ;  it  turns  from  them  and  hates  them  when  they  are 
revealed  in  their  true  character. 

Ver.  22.  If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto  them,  they 
■w^ould  not  have  sin ;  but  no-w  they  have  no  excuse  for 
their  sin.     But  in  so  doing:  the  world  is  without  excuse.     Its  unbe- 


330  JOHN  XV.  [15:  23-26. 

them,  they  had  not  had  sin :  but  now  they  have  no 

23  excuse  for  their  sin.     He  that  hateth  me  hateth  my 

24  Father  also.  If  I  had  not  done  among  them  the 
works  which  none  other  did,  they  had  not  had  sin : 
but  now  have  they  both  seen  and  hated  both  me  and 

25  my  Father.  But  this  eometh  to  2:>ass,  that  the  word 
may  be  fulfilled  that  is  written  in  their  law,  They 

26  hated  me  without  a  cause.  But  when  the  ^  Comforter 
is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  ^proceedeth  from  the 

i  Or,  Advocate.    Or,  Helper.    Gr.  Paraclete.  ^  Or,  goeih  fork  from. 

lief,  with  all  that  hatred  of  the  disciples  to  which  it  led,  is  its  own 
deliberate  act,  its  ground  of  condemnation  at  the  bar  of  God,  to  be  in 
due  time  the  terrible  ground  of  its  own  self-condemnation.  Every- 
thing had  been  done,  alike  by  the  word  and  the  works  (ver.  24)  of 
Jesus,  to  lead  it  to  the  truth  and  to  a  better  mind.  ^  There  is  not 
merely  instruction,  there  is  also  consolation  to  the  persecuted  followers 
of  Jesus  in  the  thought. 

Ver.  23.  Nay  more,  in  hating  Jesus,  the  world  was  also  settting 
itself  against  that  very  God  whom  it  professed  to  honor.  It  was  really 
hating  not  the  Son  only,  but  His  Father,  whom  He  revealed.  This 
was  the  disastrous  issue  of  its  course  of  action !  Not  they  who  in- 
flicted suffering,  but  they  who  sutFered,  were  the  conquerors. 

Ver.  24.  Jesus  had  spoken  in  ver.  22  of  his  'words'  as  sufficient 
to  deprive  the  world  of  all  excuse  in  rejecting  and  hating  Him.  He 
now  turns  to  His  'works'  as  effecting  the  same  end.  The  words  of 
Jesus  were  the  Father's  words  as  well  as  His  own  (chap.  3  :  34);  of 
the  same  character  are  the  '  works,'  which  here,  as  elsewhere,  are  not 
to  be  confined  to  miracles.     They  include  all  that  Jesus  did. 

Ver.  25.  The  quotation  is  in  all  probability  from  Ps.  69 :  4,  with 
which  Ps.  35  :  19  and  109  :  3  may  be  compared.  On  the  'fulfilment' 
spoken  of,  see  what  has  already  been  said  on  chaps.  2:  17  and  12:  38. 
The  quotation  is  made  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  out  the  aggravated 
guilt  of  those  who  were  rejecting  Jesus.  They  had  condemned  their 
fathers  because  of  the  persecutions  to  which  God's  Righteous  Servant 
of  old  had  been  exposed ;  yet  they  '  filled  up  the  measure  of  their 
fathers,' 

Vers.  26,  27.  "When  the  Advocate  is  come,  whom  I  wiU 
send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  the  Spirit  of  the  truth, 
which  goeth  forth  from  the  Father,  he  will  bear  w^itness 
concerning  me,  and  ye  also  bear  w^itness,  because  from 
the  beginning  ye  are  with  me.  Up  to  this  point  Jesus  had  en- 
couraged His  disciples  by  the  assurance  that  they  shall  be  strengthened 
to  overcome  whatever  hatred  and  opposition  from  the  world  they  shall 


13:  27.]  JOHN  XV.  831 

27  Father,  he  shall  bear  witness  of  me :  ^  and  ye  also 
bear  witness,  because  ve  have  been  with  me  from  the 
beginning. 

1  Or,  and  bear  ye  also  witnesg. 

hare  to  encounter  in  the  performance  ot  their  work.  Now  He  further 
assures  them  that  this  is  not  all.  They  shall  not  merely  meet  the 
world  unshaken  by  all  that  it  can  do :  they  shall  also  receive  a  Divine 
power,  in  the  possession  of  which  they  shall  bear  a  joyful  and  trium- 
phant witness  even  in  the  midst  of  suffering.  The  Advocate  shall  be 
with  them,  and  with  them  in  a  manner  adapted  to  that  stage  of  pro- 
gress which  they  are  thought  of  as  having  reached.  In  the  promise 
of  the  Advocate  here  given,  there  is  an  advance  upon  that  of  chap. 
14:  16,  20.  In  the  latter  passage  the  promise  had  been  connected 
with  the  training  of  the  disciples  for  their  work ;  in  the  present  it  is 
connected  with  the  execution  of  the  work.  First  of  all,  the  Advocate 
'  will  bear  witness '  concerning  .Jesus,  will  perform  that  work  of  wit- 
nessing, which  belongs  to  heralds  of  the  Cross.  But  He  will  do  th>s  in 
them.  We  are  not  to  imagine  that  His  is  an  independent  work,  carried 
on  directly  in  the  world,  and  apart  from  the  instrumentality  of  the 
disciples.  It  is  true  that  there  is  a  general  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  by  which  He  prepares  the  ear  to  hear  and  the  eye  to  see — such 
an  influence  as  that  with  which  He  wrouglit  in  Judaism,  and  even  in 
heathenism ;  but  that  is  not  the  influence  of  which  Jesus  speaks  in 
the  words  before  us.  It  is  a  specific  influence,  th.^  power  of  the  Spirit, 
to  which  He  refers — that  influence  which,  exerted  through  Himself 
when  He  was  upon  the  earth,  is  now  exerted  through  the  members  of 
His  body.  In  the  two  last  verses  of  this  chapter,  therefore,  we  have 
not  two  works  of  witnessing,  the  first  that  of  the  Advocate,  the  second 
that  of  the  disciples.  We  have  only  one — outwardly  that  of  the  dis- 
ciples, inwardly  that  of  the  Advocate.-  Hence  the  change  of  tense 
from  the  future  to  the  present  when  Jesus  speaks  of  'ye:'  the  Advo- 
cate 'will  bear  witness,'  ye  'bear  witness.'  The  two  witnessings  are 
not  on  parallel  lines,  but  on  the  same  line,  the  former  coming  to  view 
only  in  and  by  the  latter,  into  which  the  power  of  the  former  is  intro- 
duce 1.  Hence  also  the  force  of  the  emphatic  '  Ye.'  The  personality 
and  freedom  of  the  disciples  does  not  disappear  under  this  operation 
of  the  Advocate ;  they  do  not  become  mechanical  agents,  but  retain 
their  individual  standing;  they  are  still  men,  only  higher  than  they 
could  otherwise  have  been.  Hence,  finally,  the  reason  assigned  for 
the  part  given  to  the  disciples  in  the  work  ;  they  are  from  the  begin- 
ning 'with  Jesus,'  with  Him  as  partners  and  fellow-workers;  and 
this  'from  the  beginning,'  that  is,  from  the  beginning  which  belongs 
to  the  subject  in  hand — the  beginning  of  His  ministry. — The  26th 
verse  of  this  chapter  is  often  thought  to  be  of  great  importance  in  re- 
gard to  the  doctrine  of  the  '  Procession'  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Greek 
Church  finding  in  it  its  leading  argument  for  maintaining  that  that 


332  JOHN  XVI.  [16:  1,2. 

16:  1     These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  ye 

2  should  not  be  made  to  stumble.     They  shall  put  you 

out  of  the  synagogues :  yea,  the  hour  cometh,  that 

whosoever  killeth  you  shall  think  that  he  offereth  scr- 

'  Procession '  is  only  from  the  Father,  not  from  the  Son.  So  far  as 
this  text  is  concerned,  the  question  resolves  itself  into  the  further  one, 
Is  Jesus  here  speaking  of  the  Person  or  of  the  office  of  the  Advocate, 
of  the  source  of  His  being  or  of  His  operation?  Attention  to  the  pre- 
position used  with  'the  Father'  ought  at  once  to  decide  this  point. 
It  is  '  from,'  not  '  out  of,'  that  is  employed :  it  is  of  office  and  opera- 
tion, not  of  being  and  essence,  that  Jesus  speaks  (comp.  chaps.  1 :  6, 
14;  7:  29;  9:  16;  10:  18;  16:  27;  17:  8).  The  words  'which 
goeth  forth  from  the  Father '  are  not  intended  to  express  any  meta- 
physical relation  between  the  First  and  Third  Persons  of  the  Trinity, 
but  to  lead  our  thoughts  back  to  the  fact  that,  as  it  is  the  distin- 
guishing characteristic  of  Jesus  that  He  comes  from  the  Father,  so 
One  of  like  Divine  power  and  glory  is  now  to  take  His  place.  The 
same  words  'from  the  Father'  are  again  added  to  'I  will  send,'  be- 
cause the  Father  is  the  ultimate  source  from  which  the  Spirit  as  well 
as  the  Son  'goes  forth,'  and  really  the  Giver  of  the  Spirit  through  the 
Son  who  asks  for  Him  (comp.  chap.  14 :  16).  In  the  power  of  this 
Spirit,  therefore,  the  connection  of  the  disciples  with  the  Father  will, 
in  the  time  to  come,  be  not  less  close,  and  their  strength  from  the 
Father  not  less  efficacious,  than  it  had  been  while  Jesus  was  Himself 
beside  them.  The  emphasis  on  the  '  I '  of  'I  will  send '  ought  not  to 
pass  unnoticed.  It  is  as  if  Jesus  would  say:  'You  tremble  at  the 
prospect  of  my  going  away,  you  fear  that  you  will  be  desolate  ;  but  it 
is  not  so.  /  will  not  forget  you  ;  /will  be  to  you,  through  the  Spirit, 
all  that  I  have  been  ;  /  will  send  the  Advocate  to  be  in  you  and  by 
your  side.'  Could  more  be  necessary  to  sustain  them  ?  The  consola- 
tion offered  reaches  here  its  culminating  point;  but  all  has  yet  to  be 
made  clearer,  fuller,  more  impressive ;  and  to  effect  this,  not  to  intro- 
duce new  teaching,  our  Lord  proceeds  to  the  second  of  the  double 
pictures  of  this  part  of  His  discourse. 

Chap.  16:  1.  The  'things'  referred  to  are  especially  those  described 
in  chap.  15 :  18-27,  and  the  verse  is  a  pause  (not  the  introduction  of 
a  new  idea)  before  the  same  subject  is  resumed:  there  is  no  change 
either  of  circumstances  or  of  topic :  the  difference  between  this  passage 
and  the  earlier  is  simply  one  climax.  Vers.  1-6  correspond  to  chap. 
15:  18-25;  vers.  7-11,  to  vers.  26,  27,  of  the  same  chapter.  The 
word  '  make  to  stumble '  is  used  in  this  Gospel  only  in  one  other  pas- 
sage, 6:  61.  It  points  to  the  danger  of  having  faith  and  constancy 
shaken  by  trial  instead  of  standing  firm  in  allegiance  to  Jesus,  what- 
ever might  be  the  difficulties  encountered  in  His  service. 

Ver  2.  It  is  of  Jews  that  Jesus  speaks,  and  the  figure  is  therefore 
naturally  taken  from  Jewish  customs ;  but  opposition  on  the  part  of 


16  :  3,  4.]  JOHN  XVI. 


3  vice  unto  God.     And  these  things  vnll  they  do,  be- 

4  cause  they  have  not  known  the  Father,  nor  rne.  But 
these  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  when  their 
hour  is  come,  ye  may  remember  them,  how  that  I  told 
you.     And  these  things  I  said  not  unto  you  from  the 

Jews  is  in  these  discourses  the  type  of  all  opposition  to  the  truth.  On 
the  severity  of  the  trial  alluded  to  in  the  first  clause  of  the  verse,  see 
on  chap.  9:  22.  Yet  not  merely  excommunication,  but  death  in 
every  one  of  its  varied  forms  shall  be  their  portion.  Nay,  they  shall 
even  be  regarded  by  their  murderers  as  a  sacrifice  to  be  offered  to 
God;  they  shall  be  slain  as  a  part  of  the  vrorship  due  to  Him  'Every 
one  who  sheds  the  blood  of  the  impious  is  as  if  He  offered  a  sacrifice,' 
is  said  to  have  been  a  Jewish  maxim.  Not  in  indifi'erence  only  or  in 
lightness  of  spirit  shall  they  be  slain,  to  make  a  Jewish  or  a  Komau 
holiday,  when  perhaps  their  fate  might  be  mourned  over  in  soberer 
hours,  but  in  such  a  manner  that  those  who  slay  them  shall  return 
from  the  scene  as  men  who  have  engaged  in  what  they  believe  will 
gain  for  them  the  favor  of  heaven.  It  is  impossible  to  imagine  a  darker 
picture  of  fanaticism.  Yet  the  picture  is  heightened  by  the  mention 
of  '  an  hour,'  an  hour  laden  with  the  divine  purpose,  which  must 
'come'  to  them  as  it  had  come  to  Jesus  Himself. 

Ver.  3.  And  these  things  -wiU  they  do,  because  they 
know  not  the  Father,  nor  me.  The  root  of  the  opposition,  as 
formerly  spoken  of,   15:  21. 

Yer.  4.  The  analogy  of  such  passages  as  chaps.  2:  22;  12:  16; 
14:  26,  seems  to  show  that  the  'remembering'  here  spoken  of  is  not 
an  effort  of  memory  alone.  It  involves  the  deeper  insight  given  by 
experience  and  the  teaching  of  the  Spirit  into  the  meaning  and  pur- 
pose of  trial  in  the  economy  of  grace.  The  disciples  shall  so  remem- 
ber that  they  shall  have  a  fresh  insight  into  the  mystery  of  the  Cross. 
Nay  more,  they  shall  learn  to  feel  themselves  peculiarly  identified 
with  their  Lord. — And  these  things  I  told  you  not  from  the 
beginning,  because  I  V7as  -with  you.  Had  Jesus,  then,  not  told 
them  these  things  in  the  earliest  period  of  His  ministry?  It  is  often 
urged  that  passages  such  as  Matt  5:  10;  9:  15;  10:  16,  show  us 
that  He  had,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to  reconcile  these  with  the  words 
before  us.  Yet  there  is  no  contradiction.  It  is  not  merely  that  He 
now  speaks,  or  that  they  now  understand,  with  greater  clearness  than 
before.  His  'going  away'  is  an  essential  part  of  '  these  things,'  and 
with  it  all  that  He  now  says  is  so  connected  that  it  has  its  meaning 
only  in  the  light  of  that  departure.  That  they  would  have  to  take 
His  place,  and,  in  doing  so,  to  find  that  His  trials  were  their  trials, 
He  had  never  said.  That  solemn  lesson  was  connected  only  with  the 
present  moment,  when  their  training  was  completed,  and  they  were  to 
be  sent  forth  to  be  as  He  had  been. 


JOHN  XVI.  [16 :  5-7. 


5  beginning,  because  I  was  with  you.     But  now  I  go 
unto  him  that  sent  me ;  and  none  of  you  asketh  me, 

6  Whither  goest  thou  ?      But  because  I  have  spoken 
these  things  unto  you,  sorrow  hath  filled  your  heart. 

7  Nevertheless  I  tell  you  the  truth ;  It  is  expedient  for 
you  that  I  go  away  :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  ^Com- 

1  Or,  Adcocate.    Or,  Helper.    Gr.  Paraclete. 

Vers.  5,  6.  The  disciples  had  looked  upon  His  departure  simply  as 
a  departure  from  themselves,  and  had  failed  to  enter  into  all  the  glo- 
rious consequences  connected  with  it.  Thus  they  had  been  over- 
whelmed with  sorrow.  It  is  true  that,  at  chap.  13 :  36,  Peter  had 
asked  '  Whither  goest  thou  away  ? '  But  he  had  done  this  with  no 
sufficient  thought  of  the  'Whither':  the  parting,  not  the  goal  to 
which  .Jesus  went,  had  been  in  his  mind.  The  suitable  words  might 
have  been  used,  but  not  with  the  spirit  and  feeling  which  they  ought 
to  have  expressed.  This  state  of  mind  Jesus  has  now  in  view,  and  to 
it  He  refers  with  a  certain  sadness  before  He  points  out  that  His  de- 
parture was  not  less  a  cause  of  rejoicing  to  His  disciples  than  it  was 
to  Himself  (comp.  16:  22;   17:  13). 

Ver.  7.  Sorrow  filled  the  hearts  of  the  disciples  at  the  thought  of 
the  departure  of  their  Lord.  Now,  therefore,  in  these  His  crowning 
teachings,  not  only  must  their  sorrow  be  dispelled,  but  they  must  be 
sent  forth  with  thejoyful  assurance  that  His  departure  shall  secure  to 
them  the  most  glorious  strength  in  their  conflict  with  the  world,  and 
the  final  possession  of  the  victory.  The  great  truths  now  are:  (1) 
That  the  departure  of  Jesus  is  the  indispensable  condition  of  the  be- 
stowal of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  (2)  That  through  such  bestowal  the  world 
with  which  the  disciples  must  contend  shall  become  to  them  not  only  a 
conquered,  but  a  self-convicted,  foe.  The  first  of  these  truths  comes 
before  us  in  ver,  7,  the  second  in  vers.  8-11.  In  ver.  1,  along  with 
ver.  5,  three  different  words  are  used  to  express  the  idea  of  '  going 
away'  or  'going.'  Between  the  first  two  there  is  probably  little  dif- 
ference, although  the  second  may  bring  less  markedly  into  view  than 
the  first  the  mere  thought  of  departure.  The  third,  in  the  words  '  if  I 
go,'  is  distinguished  from  both  of  them  in  that  it  distinctly  expr<  sses 
not  so  much  the  thought  of  departure  as  that  of  going  to  the  Father 
(comp.  chaps.  14:  2,  3,  12,  28;  16:  28).  The  glorification  of  Jesus, 
then,  is  here  clearly  in  view ;  and  this  passage  teaches  the  same  lesson 
as  chap.  7 :  39,  that  upon  that  glorification  the  bestowal  of  the  power 
of  the  Spirit  was  dependent  (comp.  on  chap.  7 :  39).  Not  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  been  given  in  no  degree  before.  He  had  certainly 
wrought  in  Judaism,  and  had  even  been  the  Author  of  all  the  good 
that  had  ever  appeared  in  heathenism :  but  He  had  not  been  given  m 
power,  had  not  been  the  essential  characteristic  of  an  era  in  which  He 
had  made  only  scattered  and  isolated  manifestations  of  His  influences. 


16:  8.]  JOHN  XVI.  335 

forter  will  not  come  unto  you;  but  if  I  go,  I  will 
8  send  him  unto  you.     And  he,  when  he  is  come,  will 

convict  the  world  in  respect  of  sin,  and  of  righteous- 
It  was  to  be  different  now.  The  era  to  begin  was  the  era  of  the  Spirit, 
in  which  He  was  to  breathe  a  new  life  into  the  world.  The  end  of  all 
God's  dealings  with  man  is  that  he  shall  be  brought  into  the  closest 
and  most  perfect  union  with  Himself,  and  that,  in  order  to  do  this,  He 
shall  be  spiritualized  and  glorified.  This  is  effected  through  Him  who 
took  human  nature  into  communion  with  the  Divine,  and  the  end  of 
whose  course  is  not  the  Incarnation,  but  His  being  made  'the  first- 
born' among  many  brethren  so  spiritualized,  so  glorified.  Only, 
therefore,  when  this  end  is  reached  is  Jesus,  as  not  only  Son  of  God 
but  Son  of  man  (3:  14,  15),  in  full  possession  of  the  Spirit;  only 
then  is  He  so  set  free  from  the  conflicts  and  the  troubles  of  the  time 
of  His  'sufTerings'  (Heb.  2:  10;  5:  8)  that  His  own  spiritual  power 
and  glory  are  illimitable  and  unconditioned ;  only  then  can  He  bestow 
in  His  fulness  that  Spirit  which,  as  the  essential  characteristic  of  His 
own  final,  perfect  state,  is  to  raise  us  to  the  similar  end  which  the 
purpose  of  God  contemplates  with  regard  to  us.  In  this  sense  the 
Holy  Spirit  not  only  was  not  but  could  not  be  given  so  long  as  Jesus 
was  on  earth,  unglorified.  But  then,  when,  as  Son  of  man  glorified, 
and  still,  because  Son  of  man,  in  closest  fellowship  with  us  who  are 
men.  He  should  have  in  Himself  all  the  power  of  the  Spirit, — then 
would  He  be  able — and  how  could  they  wlio  knew  His  love  doubt  that 
He  would  be  willing? — to  pour  forth  upon  His  disciples  that  '  Spirit  of 
glory  and  of  God'  which  should  make  them  more  than  conquerors 
over  all  their  adversaries.  Surely  it  was  '  expedient '  'for  them  that 
He  should  'go  away,'  and,  in  going  away,  'go'  to  the  Father.  Nay, 
it  was  better  for  them  that  He  should  '  go  away '  than  that  He  should 
remain  ;  for  not  only  was  this  fulness  of  the  Spirit  connected  with  His 
glorified  condition,  but  the  disciples,  instead  of  leaning  on  Him  as 
they  had  done,  would  gain  all  that  strengthening  of  character  which 
flows  from  working  ourselves  rather  than  having  work  done  for  us  by 
another. 

Ver.  8.  And  he,  when  he  is  come,  vrill  convict  the  "world 
concerning  sin,  and  concerning  righteousness,  and  con- 
cerning judgment.  The  Agent  has  been  spoken  of;  we  now  enter 
upon  His  work,  and  the  climax  from  chap.  15:  26,  where  the  same 
aspect  of  the  Spirit's  work  is  spoken  of.  is  clearly  perceptible.  We 
are  not  to  understand  by  the  word  '  convict '  either  simply  '  reprove ' 
or  '  convince.'  It  is  much  more  than  both,  and  implies  that  answer  of 
conscience  to  the  reproving  convincing  voice,  by  which  a  man  con- 
demns himself  (3:  20,  8:  26).  The  word  '  concerning '  also  is  not 
the  same  as  '  of.'  The  inference  to  be  drawn  from  these  considerations 
(comp.  also  on  chap.  14  :  30,  31),  is  that  in  the  conviction  of  the  world 
liere  spoken  of  its  conversion  is  not  necessarily  implied.     Conversion 


33G  JOHN  XVI.  [16:  9-11. 

9  ness,  and  of  juclgemeni>of  sin,  because  they  believe  not 

10  on  me ;  of  righteousness,  because  I  go  to  the  Father, 

11  and  ye  behold  me  no  more ;  of  judgement,  because  the 

may  or  may  not  follow  for  anything  here  stated.  The  promise  now 
given  to  the  disciples  is  not  that  they  shall  convert  the  world,  but 
that  it  shall  be  silenced,  self-condemned,  overwhelmed  with  shame 
and  confusion  of  face.  The  Judge  of  all  the  earth  is  upon  their  side  ; 
He  will  judge  for  them. 

Vers.  9-11.  Concerning  sin,  because  they  believe  not  in 
me  :  and  concerning  righteousness,  because  I  go  a-way  to 
the  Father,  and  ye  no  longer  behold  me  :  and  concerning 
judgment,  because  the  prince  of  this  world  hath  been 
judged.  The  general  work  cf  conviction  to  be  eflFected  by  the  Spirit 
having  been  stated  in  ver.  8,  the  several  particulars  are  next  explained 
more  fully.  The  point  of  view  from  which  all  are  to  be  looked  at  is 
that  of  the  controversy  with  the  world  in  which  Jesus  had  Himself 
been  engaged.  So  long  as  He  was  on  the  earth  this  controversy  was 
left  unsettled ;  but  after  His  departure,  His  disciples,  in  the  power  of 
the  promised  Advocate,  shall  bring  it  to  a  triumphant  issue.  The 
first  part  of  that  controversy  had  reference  to  sin.  The  world  had 
cast  on  Jesus  the  imputation  of  sin  (5:  18;  7:  20,  etc.j  ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand.  His  whole  work  and  life  had  been  first  directed  to 
bring  the  charge  of  sin  home  to  the  world.  But  the  world  had  no 
just  idea  of  what  sin  was.  It  thought  of  gross  violations  of  the  Di- 
vine law,  or  of  violations  of  positive  religious  ceremonial :  of  sin  in  its 
true  sense,  not  only  as  a  departure  from  truth  and  love,  but  as  even  a 
failing  to  recognise  and  welcome  these  with  all  the  aff'ection  of  the 
heart  and  devotion  of  the  life,  it  had  no  idea.  The  Advocate  shall 
convict  the  world  of  wrong  in  its  estimate  of  Jesus,  and  thus  also  in  its 
estimate  of  itself.  He  shall  bring  home  to  the  world  the  fact  that  it 
believed  not  in  Jesus,  did  not  trust  itself  to  Him  as  the  impersonation 
of  Divine  truth  and  love,  and  that  in  this  lay  sin,  nay,  the  very  es- 
sence and  root  of  all  sin,  for  it  is  really  a  rejection  of  the  Father  mani- 
fested in  Jesus — it  is  hating  the  light  and  choosing  the  darkness  (3  : 
21,  etc).  Thus  it  was  unnecessary  to  speak  of  other  sins  :  this  was 
the  crowning  sin,  inclusive  of  them  all.  The  second  part  of  the  con- 
troversy of  Jesus  with  the  world  had  reference  to  righteousness  : — 
in  what  righteousness  really  lay,  what  the  true  nature  of  righteous- 
ness was.  The  world  boasted  of  its  righteousness ;  Jesus  had  pro- 
nounced that  righteousness  to  be  worthless  (Matt.  5  :  20,  etc).  Again, 
which  of  them  is  right  ?  The  Advocate,  working  in  the  disciples,  will 
bring  home  to  the  world  the  truth  that,  notwithstanding  its  rejection 
of  Jesus,  the  Father  has  received  Him,  and  has  set  His  seal  upon 
Him  as  His  Righteous  One.  Hence  the  last  words  of  ver.  10, '  because 
I  go  to  the  Father,  and  ye  no  longer  behold  me,'  gently  explain  that 
what  brought  such  grief  to  those  who  were  now  to  be  separated  from 


10:12.]  JOHN  XVI.  337 

12  prince  of  this  world  hath  been  judged.     I  have  yet 

their  Lord  was  the  very  means  of  accomplishing  the  great  purpose 
that  the  Father  had  in  view — the  settlement  of  the  controversy  as  to 
His  Son,  and  the  manifestation  of  what  the  Son  really  was.  The 
third  part  of  the  work  of  conviction  is  that  of  judgment.  The  world 
had  judged  Jesus;  but  He,  on  the  other  hand,  had  judged  the  world; 
and  His  judgment  would  be  proved  to  be  just  when  the  Advocate 
should  enable  the  disciples  to  bring  home  to  the  world  that  it  was 
founded  upon  eternal  reality  and  truth.  Then  should  it  see  that  its 
very  prince  had  been  judged  in  a  manner  against  which  there  was  no 
appeal,  and  that,  instead  of  being  the  conqueror,  he  had  throughout 
been  the  conquered.  Then  should  the  world  be  constrained  to  con- 
fess that  it  had  been  madly  attempting  to  reverse  the  position  of  the 
everlasting  scales,  and  had  been  foiled  in  the  attempt.  Such,  then,  is 
the  great  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  world  during  the  whole 
period  that  was  to  pass  between  the  departure  of  Jesus  to  His  Father 
and  His  coming  again  in  glory.  It  is  the  same  work  which  Jesus 
had  Himself  carried  on,  that  is  now  completed  by  the  '  other  '  Advo- 
cate. The  difference  does  not  lie  so  much  in  the  nature  as  in  the 
effect  of  the  work:  to  the  one  period  belongs  the  beginning  of  the 
controversy ;  to  the  other  the  final  decision.  The  conviction  is  not 
primarily  a  work  of  conversion  (although  it  may  lead  to  conversion) : 
it  is  a  work  that  confounds  and  overwhelms  the  world  when,  as  God 
gives  His  judgments  unto  the  King  and  His  righteousness  unto  the 
King's  Son,  '  they  that  dwell  in  the  wilderness  shall  bow  before  Him, 
and  His  enemies  shall  lick  the  dust'  (Ps.  72:  9). 

Ver.  12.  Jesus  is  about  to  draw  His  instructions  and  consolations 
to  a  close.  He  does  so  by  returning  to  the  great  promise  of  the 
Spirit  already  given  in  chap.  14 :  26.  Yet  there  is  a  difference  be- 
tween the  promise  there  and  here ;  and  the  difference,  as  usual,  is  one 
of  climax.  Teaching  of  a  higher  kind  is  now  to  be  referred  to,  for  the 
element  of  experience  comes  in.  It  is  not  enough  to  have  been  taught 
by  Jesus  Himself  The  disciples  were  to  take  their  Master's  place, 
and  to  carry  on  His  work.  The  Spirit,  then,  who  had  been  His 
strength,  must  be  also  theirs.  Thus  it  is  not  so  much  new  teaching 
that  they  need  as  the  old  teaching  in  a  new  way,  brought  home  to 
their  hearts  with  a  new  power.  It  is,  indeed,  often  supposed  that  the 
'  many  things '  here  spoken  of  refer  to  new  truths.  This  seems  im- 
probable. We  can  hardly  suppose  that  Jesus  had  reserved  any  large 
part  of  His  revelation  especially  when  He  had  so  often  spoken  of  the 
revelation  of  '  the  Father,'  as  if  it  contained  the  sum  and  substance  of 
religious  truth.  Besides  this,  in  the  words  of  Jesus  'all  things'  are 
implicitly  contained  (comp.  on  chap.  14  :  26).  And,  further,  the 
word  '  bear  '  does  not  mean  to  apprehend  :  it  is  to  bear  as  a  burden, 
and  the  most  glorious  and  encouraging  truths  may  become  a  burden  to 
one  too  immature  to  bear  them.  Not,  therefore,  because  the  disciples 
could  not  in  a  certain  sense  even  now  understand  further  revelation, 
22 


338  JOHN  XVI.  [16:  13. 

13  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear 
them  now.  Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  trut' 
is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth :  for  he 
shall  not  speak  from  himself;  but  what  things  soever 
he  shall  hear,  these  shall  he  speak  :  and  he  shall  de- 
clare unto  you  the  things  that  are  to  come.     He  shall 

but  because  they  had  not  yet  the  Christian  experience  to  give  that 
revelation  power,  does  Jesus  say  that  tiiey  cannot  bear  the  many 
things  that  He  has  yet  to  say  unto  them.  When  shall  they,  or  when 
shall  the  Church,  be  able  to  understand  them  ?  The  answer  is.  When 
at  any  stage  ef  their  or  her  future  history  the  '  many  things '  are 
needed,  and  so  may  have  their  power  felt.  But  just  because  of  this 
they  need  not  be,  as  the  whole  context  teaches  us  they  are  not  to  be, 
new  truths.  They  are  old  truths  made  new,  expanded,  unfolded  (as 
we  see  especially  in  the  Epistles  of  Paul),  illuminated  by  receiving 
light  from  the  lessons  of  history,  when  these  are  read  in  the  spirit  of 
Christian  trust  and  confidence  and  hope,  but  not  wholly  new.  There 
will  not  be  in  them  one  revelation,  strictly  so  called,  that  was  not  in 
the  words  of  Jesus  Himself:  but  their  ever  greater  depths  shall  be 
seen  as  the  relations  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world  respectively  be- 
come more  complex.  It  has  been  so  in  the  past :  it  will  be  so  in  the  fu- 
ture. There  is  no  reason  to  think  the  treasure  in  the  words  of  .Jesus  will 
ever  be  exhausted  :  it  contains,  according  to  the  seeming  paradox  of  the 
apostle,  what  we  are  'to  know,'  although  it  *  passeth  knowledge' 
(Eph.  3  :  19).  This  is  the  true  development  of  Christian  insight  and 
experience,  not  the  false  development  of  Rome. 

Ver.  13.  But  -when  he  is  come,  the  Spirit  of  the  truth,  he 
"will  guide  you  into  all  the  truth  :  for  he  -will  not  speak 
from  himself ;  but  -whatsoever  things  he  shall  hear,  he  will 
speak  :  and  he  "will  declare  to  you  the  things  that  are  com- 
ing. These  words  lend  strong  confirmation  to  what  has  been  said  on 
the  previous  verse.  For  this  work  of  the  Spirit  is  evidently  diifer- 
ent  from  that  of  chaps.  15 :  26  ;  16  :  7  ;  the  first  pair  of  these  pas- 
sages relating  to  preparation  for  the  work,  the  second  to  the  discharge 
of  its  duties,  while  this  relates  to  something  to  be  given  in  the  midst 
of  these  duties  and  their  corresponding  trials.  Further,  *  He  shall 
guide '  implies  not  merely  that  He  shall  show  the  way,  but  that  He 
shall  Himself   experimentally  go  before  them  in  the  way  (Matt   16: 

14  ;  Luke  6  :  39  ;  Acts  8  :  31 ;  Rev.  7  :  17).  It  will  thus  be  observed 
that  we  are  again  led  to  think,  not  of  new  revelation,  but  of  earlier 
teaching  deepened  by  experience.  The  view  now  taken  is  strength- 
ened by  two  important  particulars  in  this  verse: — (1)  The  unexpected 
use  of  *  for'  in  the  clause  'for  He  shall  not  speak  from  Himself.'  This 
•word,  so  closely  binding  the  clauses  together,  makes  it  plain  that  '  all 
the  truth '  can  be  nothing  else  than  the  truth  of  which  Jesus  was  the 


16:  14,  15.]  JOHN  XVI.  339 

14  glorify  me    for  he  shall  take  of    mine,   and   shall 

15  declare   it  unto   you.      All    things    whatsoever    the 
Father  hath  are  mine  :  therefore  said  I,  that  he  taketh 

Proclaimer :  *  all  the  truth,'  He  would  say,  *  which  I  have  proclaimed, 
of  which  I  am  Myself  the  substance  (14  :  6).'  '  He  will  guide  you,  for 
it  is  not  from  Himself  that  He  will  speak  :  He  comes  as  J/?/  Represen- 
tative, not  for  new  and  independent  offices  of  grace  :  He  Avill  carry  on 
Ml/  work.'  (2)  When  it  is  said,  '  He  hears,'  we  are  not  told  whence  He 
hears.  It  is  possible  that  it  may  be  from  the  Father ;  but  when  we 
call  to  mind  that  the  unity  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  a  leading 
thought  in  this  discourse  (comp.  14:  23,26,  and  especially  15:  26), 
it  seems  highly  probable  that  the  mention  of  the  Source  whence  the 
Spirit  hears  is  designedly  omitted  Thus  we  are  led  to  think  not  of 
the  Father  only,  but  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  again  the  reve- 
lation given  is  bounded  by  what  Jesus  has  Himself  revealed.  The  last 
clause  of  the  verse  may  indeed,  at  first  sight,  appear  inconsistent  with 
this  view.  Ai-e  not '  the  things  to  come'  new  revelations?  We  answer 
that  in  no  strict  sense  of  the  words  are  they  so.  Even  should  we  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  speaks  of  such  things  as  '  the  things  to  come '  of  the 
Apocalypse  (chap,  1 :  19),  these  properly  interpreted  are  not  so  much 
revelations  wholly  new,  as  new  applications  of  what  had  already  been 
revealed,  and  in  particular  of  that  very  controversy  between  the 
Church  and  the  world  of  which  the  mind  of  Jesus  was  now  full.  'The 
things  that  are  coming '  are  the  things  that  happen  when  *  He  who  is 
to  come '  begins  in  the  power  of  His  Spirit  the  great  conflict  carried 
on  throughout  all  the  ages  of  the  Christian  Church  in  her  militant 
condition :  and  the  whole  verse  thus  refers  not  to  new  revelations, 
but  to  revelations  made  new  by  the  teaching  of  Christian  experience. 

Ver.  14.  He  shall  glorify  me,  because  of  that  -which  is 
mine  "will  he  receive  and  -will  declare  it  unto  you.  On  the 
gloi-ifying  of  Jesus  here  spoken  of,  see  on  chap.  13  :  31.  This  glory 
will  be  given  Him  by  the  powerful  working  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
Church,  because  that  which  the  Spirit  applies  for  the  ever  increasing 
growth  and  efficiency  of  the  Church  is  only  a  fuller  unfolding  of  '  the 
unsearchable  riches  of  Christ.'  To  Him  as  the  Alpha  and  Omega  of 
our  faith,  and  never  beyond  Him,  the  Spirit  leads  us. 

Ver.  15.  All  things  whatsoever  the  Father  hath  are  mine: 
therefore  said  I  that  he  receiveth  of  that  which  is  mine, 
and  will  declare  it  unto  you.  It  is  of  Himself  as  Son  of  man  as 
well  as  Son  of  God,  not  of  Himself  only  as  the  Eternal  Son,  that  Jesus 
speaks.  In  that  capacity  'all  things  whatsoever'  had  been  given 
Him  by  the  Father.  Therefore  might  He  well  say  in  the  previous 
verse  that,  in  leading  His  disciples  onward  to  the  ultimate  goal  of  the 
Divine  purposes,  the  Spirit  would  do  this  by  receiving  and  declaring 
of  that  which  was  His.  What  was  so  received  and  declared  would  not 
fall  short,  therefore,  of  leading  them  into  the  highest  truth — the  truth 
apS  to  'the  Father.' 


340  JOHN  XVI.  [16:  16-20. 

16  of  mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you.  A  little  while 
and  ye  behold  me  no  more  ;    and  again  a  little  while, 

17  and  ye  shall  see  me.  Some  of  his  disciples  therefore 
said  one  to  another,  What  is  this  that  he  saith  unto 
us,  a  little  while,  and  ye  behold  me  not ;  and  again  a 
little  while,  and  ye  shall  see  me  :  and.  Because  I  go  to 

18  the  Father  ?  They  said  therefore.  What  is  this  that 
he  saith,  A  little  while  ?   We  know  not  what  he  saith. 

19  Jesus  perceived  that  they  were  desirous  to  ask  him, 
and  he  said  unto  them,  Do  ye  inquire  among  your- 
selves concerning  this,  that  I  said,  A  little  while,  and 
ye  behold  me  not,  and  again  a  little   while,  and  ye 

20  shall  see  me?  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  ye 
shall  weep  and  lament,  but  the  world  shall  rejoice : 
ye  shall  be  sorrowful,  but  your  sorrow  shall  be  turned 

Ver.  16.  A  little  "while  and  ye  behold  me  no  longer; 
and  again  a  little  -while,  and  ye  shall  see  me.  Trial  has  been 
spoken  of  and  encouragement  given.  That  both  shall  soon  be  known 
is  the  transition  to  the  present  verse.  The  difference  between  the 
verbs  '  behold  '  and  '  see  '  must  determine  the  meaning  of  the  words, 
the  former  here  denoting  (as  14  :  19)  vision  with  the  bodily,  the  latter 
vision  with  the  spiritual,  eye.  The  time  closing  the  first  '  little  while' 
is  the  death  of  Christ,  when  *  not  beholding '  begins  '  the  time  closing; 
the  second  '  little  while '  dates  from  th-e  resurrection,  when  the  '  see- 
ing '  begins  and  continues  for  ever  (comp.  14:  19).  After  the  death 
of  their  Lord  the  disciples  shall  be  in  the  position  of  the  world  (13: 
13)  ;  under  the  saddening  influence  of  that  event  their  faith  shall 
wane,  and  all  the  joy  experienced  in  His  presence  shall  disappear. 
But  He  whom  they  had  thought  lost  for  ever  shall  enter  at  His  resur- 
rection on  a  glorified  existence,  from  which  He  shall  send  to  them  that 
Advocate  in  whom  and  through  whom  He  shall  be  always  with  them, 
and  they  with  Him. 

Vers.  17,  18.  The  perplexity  of  the  disciples  is  natural,  and  it  is 
occasioned  not  only  by  the  last  words  actually  used  by  Jesus,  but  by 
what  had  been  so  prominent  a  point  in  the  previous  part  of  His  dis- 
course, that  He  was  going  away  to  the  Father  (ver.  10).  They  fear, 
however,  to  ask  a  direct  explanation,  and  some  of  them  discuss  the 
matter  among  themselves. 

Vers.  19,  20.  Jesus  entered  at  once  into  their  diflficulties,  and  pro- 
ceeded to  explain  more  fully  what  He  meant,  not  indeed  dwelling 
most  upon  the  '  little  while,'  but  upon  the  great  and  sudden  contrasts 
of  mind  to  be  experienced  by  them,  and  previously  hinted  at  in  the 
words  '  behold '  and  '  see.' 


16:  21-24.]  JOHN  XVI.  341 

21  into  joy.  A  woman  "svlien  she  is  in  travail  hath 
sorrow,  because  her  hour  is  come :  but  when  she 
is  delivered  of  the  child,  she  remembereth  no  more 
the  anguish,  for  the  joy  that  a  man  is  born  into  the 

22  world.  And  ye  therefore  now  have  sorrow :  but  I 
will  see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall  rejoice,  and 

23  your  joy  no  one  taketh  away  from  you.  And  in  that 
day  ye  shall  ^ask  me  nothing.  Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you.  If  ye  shall  ask  anything  of  the  Father,  he 

24  will  give  it  you  in  my  name.  Hitherto  have  ye  asked 
nothing  in  my  name :  ask,  and  ye  shall  receive,  that 
your  joy  may  be  fulfilled. 

1  Or,  ask  me  no  question. 

Ver.  21.  An  illustration  familiar  to  all,  but  drawn  out  of  the  very 
heart  of  Old  Testament  life  and  feeling  (Isa.  21  :  3  ;  26  :  17  ;  66  :  7  ; 
Ps.  128  :  3  :  Ezek.  19  :  10).  Yet  there  is  more  in  the  language  than 
meets  the  eye  at  first  sight,  and  its  peculiarities  form  a  valuable  proof 
of  the  correctness  of  the  interpretation  given  above  by  the  twice  re- 
peated 'little  while.'  For  (1)  the  expression  her  'hour'  is  come,  al- 
ludes to  the  crucifixion  as  the  *  hour '  of  Jesus,  that  of  His  deepest 
Borrow  and  the  sorrow  of  His  disciples.  And  (2)  the  use  of  the  word 
'  man  '  instead  of  child  hints  at  the  new  birth  of  regenerated  human- 
ity in  the  moment  when  Jesus  Himself  arose  from  the  grave.* 

Ver.  22.  At  ver.  19  Jesus  had  said  'ye  shall  see  me,'  but  now  He 
says  '  I  will  see  you.'  It  is  the  blessed  reciprocity  of  intercourse  be- 
tween Him  and  His  own.  From  the  moment  of  the  resurrection  He 
will  see  them,  and  they  shall  see  Him,  and  shall  rise  to  the  full  bright- 
ness of  that  position  to  which  He  elevates  His  people.  Nor  will  this 
'seeing'  terminate  with  the- ascension,  for  it  is  their  spiritual  vision 
that  is  mainly  thought  of.  In  the  power  of  the  Spirit  He  will  see 
them  and  they  Him,  and  they  shall  rejoice  with  a  triumphant  and 
abiding  joy. 

Vers.  23,  24.  And  in  that  day  ye  shall  ask  me  no  ques- 
tion. Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  if  ye  shall  ask  any- 
thing of  the  Father,  he  will  give  it  you  in  my  name. 
Hitherto,  ye  asked  nothing  in  my  name,  ask,  and  ye  shaU 

[*  Lange  takes  the  same  view  :  "  The  death  of  Christ  is  the  agonizing  travail  of  hu- 
manity, from  which  labor  the  God-Man  issues,  glorified,  to  the  eternal  joy  of  the 
■whole  body  of  mankind."  Similarly  Chrysostom,  Olshausen,  Alford.  The  words  are 
applicable  also  to  the  travails  of  the  Church  in  bringing  forth  children  of  God.  Yet 
•we  should  overlook  the  immediate  reference.  A  touching  and  most  comforting  proof 
of  our  Saviour's  tender  sympathy  with  woman's  deepest  trial  (G«n.  3  :  16)  and  high- 
est joy.— P.  S.] 


342  JOHN  XVI.  [16:  25-27. 


25  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you  in  ^  proverbs : 
the  hour  cometh,  when  I  shall  no  more  speak  unto 
you  in  ^proverbs,*  but  shall  tell  you  plainly  of  the 

26  Father.  In  that  day  ye  shall  ask  in  my  name :  and 
I  say  not  unto  you,  that  I  will  ^pray  the  Father  for 

27  you ;  for  the  Father  himself  loveth  you,  because  ye 
have  loved  me,  and  have  believed  that  I  came  forth 

1  Or,  parables.  2  Gr.  7iiake  request  of. 

*  For  "  proverbs  "  read  "  dark  savings."— ^r».  Com, 

receive,  that  your  joy  may  be  fulfilled.  The  two  verbs  here 
rendered  '  ask  a  question'  [a/)wrdw]  and  'ask'  [alrew]  are  different; 
and  though  the  former  may  be  used  of  prayer  when  our  Lord  '  asks; 
the  Father  (17  :  9,  15,  20),  it  seems  impossible  to  separate  the  use  of 

*  ask  a  question'  in  ver.  23  from  its  use  in  ver.  19  and  again  in  ver. 
30,  in  both  which  passages  it  refers  to  asking  information  upon  points 
occasioning  perplexity  to  the  mind.  The  declaration  of  Jesus  thus  is,  that 
in  the  day  when  the  joy  of  the  disciples  is  perfected  they  will  not  need 
to  feel  that  they  must  have  Him  beside  them  to  solve  their  difficulties. 
They  will  then  be  so  entirely  in  Him,  one  with  Him,  that  along  with 
Him  they  will  have  such  a  full  knowledge  from  the  Holy  Spirit — a 
knowledge  belonging  to  His  'day' — as  will  exclude  the  need  of  such 
questions.  But  this  full  knowledge  will  do  more.  If  it  restrains  the 
questioning  of  ignorance,  it  at  the  same  time  opens  their  eyes  to  see 
better  all  their  true  need,  and  the  source  from  which  it  shall  be  sup- 
plied. Therefore,  not  in  a  spirit  of  curious  questioning  but  in  a  spirit 
of  perfect  trust  let  them  approach  the  Father,  for  He  will  give  to  them 

♦  in  the  name '  of  Jesus.  He  has  revealed  Himself  to  them  in  Jesus 
as  their  Father  ;  He  has  made  them  in  Him  His  own  sons  ;  therefore 
shall  they  receive  as  sons,  and  nothing  shall  be  awanting  to  the  ful- 
filment of  their  joy. 

Ver.  25.  Jesus  is  now  about  to  close  His  last  discourse.  At  this 
point,  accordingly,  He  refers  to  the  method  of  teaching,  of  which  He 
was  giving  them  illustration  at  the  moment,  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing out  by  contrast  the  glory  of  the  period  upon  which  the  disciples 
were  about  to  enter.  On  the  word  'proverbs,'  comp.  on  10:  6.  The 
contrast  suggested  is  not  between  figurative  and  direct  speech,  or  be- 
tween enigmatical  and  clear  sayings,  but  between  outward  teaching 
of  every  kind  and  that  internal  teaching  which  comf  s  from  the  illu- 
minating influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  which  is  the  best,  the 
only  true,  teaching.  The  Spirit  shall  be  given  after  Jesus  goes  away, 
and  the  disciples  shall  see  in  their  own  free  and  independent  insight 
what  as  yet  they  received  only  upon  the  authority  of  their  Master. 

Vers.  26,  27.  In  these  words  the  encouragement  that  He  would 
give  to  His  disciples  reaches  its  highest  point.  They  are  assured  that 
they  shall  stand  in  such  unity  of  love  with  the  Father  that  the  Father 


16:  28-30.]  JOHN  XVI.  343 

28  from  the  Father.     I  came  out  from  the  Father,  and 
am  come  into  the  world :  again,  I   leave  the  world, 

29  and  go  unto  the  Father.     His  disciples  say,  Lo,  now 
speakest  thou   plainly,    and  speakest   ik>   ^proverb.* 

30  Now  know  we  that  thou  knowest   all  things,  and 

lOr, 


♦For  "proverb"  read  "dark  saying."— ^m.  Owt 
shall  embrace  them  in  constant  affection  as  His  sons,  that  they  as  sons 
shall  approach  directly  to  Him  as  their  Father,  and  that  in  that  inter- 
course there  stiall  come  to  them  every  blessing  which  the  fulness  of 
Divine  love  can  supply.  The  verse  will  best  be  understood  by  con- 
trasting it  with  the  words  of  14 :  16.  There  Jesus  had  said  that  He 
would  ask  the  Father,  and  He  would  give  them  another  Advocate. 
Here  He  says  that  He  will  not  need  to  ask  for  this  Advocate  on  their 
behalf;  and  why?  Becauae  the  Advocate  has  come,  because  He  has 
taken  full  possession  of  their  hearts,  because  it  is  His  '  day.'  What  is 
the  consequence?  They  will  ask  'in  the  name'  of  Jesus;  that  is,  the 
habit  of  their  mind  is  that  of  prayer  as  persons  who,  through  the 
revelation  of  the  Father  in  the  Son,  know  the  Father  to  be  their 
Father.  Further,  Jesus  will  not  need  to  ask  concerning  them,  for 
the  Father  needs  no  one  to  remind  Him  of  His  children.  Lastly,  the 
Father  Himself  will  enfold  them  in  His  love,  because  in  faith  and 
love  they  have  been  united  to  the  Son  with  whom  He  is  one.  It  is  an 
ideal  state,  the  perfected  state  of  the  Church  of  Christ  under  the 
teaching  of  the  Spirit ;  a  state  not  yet  reached  by  her  amidst  her 
many  sins  and  weaknesses.  Nevertheless  the  state  is  one  not  the  less 
ideally  true,  because  not  yet  reached  ;  and  not  the  less  to  be  kept  be- 
fore us  as  the  hope  of  our  calling  to  that  glorious  issue,  when  all  con- 
tradictions and  disharmonies  shall  be  done  away,  and  when,  through 
the  power  of  the  Spirit,  the  one  unity  of  Father,  Son,  and  redeemed 
man  shall  be  completely  realized. 

Ver.  28.  I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and  am  come  into 
the  -world :  again,  I  leave  the  -world  and  go  to  the  Father. 
The  discourse  is  about  to  close,  and  it  does  so  in  the  manner  of  which 
we  have  had  so  many  illustrations,  by  returning  again  to  the  leading 
truths  that  had  been  spoken  of.  The  words  before  us  are  accordingly 
a  summary  of  the  whole  history  of  Jesus  in  the  light  of  His  redeeming 
work,  from  the  period  of  His  pre-existent  state  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father  to  the  period  when  He  shall  again  return  to  His  everlasting 
rest  in  Rim.  He  came  that  He  might  lead  men  to  the  Father;  He 
goes  that  they  may  be  perfected  in  the  Spirit,  and  that  He  may  pre- 
pare a  place  for  them  in  the  many  places  of  abode  in  the  Father's 
house. 

Vers.  29,  30.  Two  entirely  different  views  may  be  taken  of  the 
feelings  and  language  of  the  disciples  as  here  described.  Either 
they  are  really  led  into  a  sudden  knowledge  of  the  truth,  thus  afford- 


844  JOHN  XVI.  [16 !  31-33. 

needest  not  that  any  man  should  ask  thee:  by  this 

31  we  believe  that  thou  earnest  forth  from  God.     Jesus 

32  answered  them,  Do  ye  now  believe  ?  Behold,  the 
hour  Cometh,,  yea,  is  come,  that  ye  shall  be  scattered, 
every  man  to  his  own,  and  shall  leave  me  alone :  and 
yet  I  am  not  alone,  because  the  Father  is  with  me. 

33  These  things  have  I  spoken  unto  you,  that  in  me  ye 
may  have  peace.  In  the  world  ye  have  tribulation  : 
but  be  of  good  cheer ;  I  have  overcome  the  world. 

ing  a  striking  illustration  of  darkness  dispelled  and  of  heavenly  light 
shining  into  the  heart  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  while  He  again  joy- 
fully recognizes  their  faith  and  beholds  in  it  an  earnest  of  completed 
victory;  or  the  disciples  misunderstand  themselves,  and  confess  their 
faith  in  a  manner  which,  though  sincere,  is  so  imperfect  that  Jesus  is 
constrained  to  speak  to  them  in  words  of  warning.  The  latter  view  is 
that  which  desei'ves  acceptance.  The  disciples'  words,  '  now  we 
know,'  contrasting  with  the  promise  of  ver,  23,  a  promise  relating  to 
the  future,  are  obviously  hasty ;  there  was  nothing  clearer  in  the 
latest  words  of  Jesus  than  in  words  often  uttered  by  Him  before; 
and,  above  all,  the  confession  proves  itself  by  its  very  terms  to  be  im- 
perfect, inadequate,  inferior  to  that  of  a  true  failh.  The  disciples 
think  that  they  believe ;  but  they  do  not  believe  in  such  a  way  as  will 
alone  enable  them  to  stand  in  the  midst  of  coming  trial.  They  per- 
suade themselves  that  even  'now'  their  faith  is  all  that  it  need  be; 
and  they  must  be  warned  and  reproved. 

Vers.  31,  32.  The  view  taken  of  the  preceding  verse  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  is  interrogative,  not 
affirmative,  and  the  conclusion  is  favored  by  6:  70;  13:  38.  The 
meaning  of  the  reply  is  :  '  You  anticipate  the  time,  you  deceive  your- 
selves ;  this  faith  of  yours,  sincere  and  real  up  to  a  certain  point 
though  it  be,  needs  deepening  and  perfecting.  It.  will  be  deepened 
and  perfected  in  such  a  way  that  no  trial  will  be  too  hard  for  it — but 
not  yet ;  rather  the  hour  cometh,  and  is  come,  when  you  shall  all  for- 
sake Me  in  the  time  of  My  greatest  need,  and  shall  think  only  sel- 
fishly of  yourselves.  Yet,  notwithstanding,  even  then,  when  to  all 
appearance  alone,  I  am  not  alone,  for  the  Father  is  with  me, 

Ver.  33.  '  These  things '  refers  to  all  that  had  been  spoken  from 
chap.  14:  1,  to  the  thought  of  which  beginning  of  His  discourse  Jesus 
now  returns  at  its  close.  The  present  tense,  'ye  have,'  seems  to  indi- 
cate that  tribulation  is  not  merely  a  historical  certainty,  but  the  natu- 
ral consequence  of  the  position  of  the  disciples  in  the  world.  It  must, 
as  well  as  will,  be  so.  The  world  is  a  conquered  foe,  Jesus  has  over- 
come it,  and  that  not  for  Himself  only,  but  for  them.  His  faithful 
disciples  have  still  sorrow  in  the  world,  but  their  sorrow  is  turned 


17:1.]  JOHN  XVII.  345 

Chapter  17:  1-26. 
The   Intercessory  or  High-priestly  Prayer  of  Jesus. 

1      These  things  spake  Jesus ;  and  lifting  up  His  eyes 
to  heaven,  he  said,  Father,  the  hour  is  come ;  glorify 

into  joy;  they  have  still  to  wage  a  warfare  in  the  world,  but  each 
part  of  the  field  resounds  with  their  exulting  shouts,  and  the  very 
death  which  the  world  may  bring  to  them  is  the  gate  of  higher  and 
more  glorious  life.  The  world  is  not  to  be  overcome :  it  is  overcome  ; 
and  to  those  who  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  their  Lord,  the  path 
through  is  not  so  much  a  conflict  as  a  victory.  As  reapers,  in  the 
harvest  field,  they  rejoice  together  with  Him  who  sowed  (iv.  86)  ;  as 
soldiers  of  the  cross,  they  share  the  triumph  of  the  Captain  of  their 
salvation. 

The  Intercessory  or  Eigh-priestly  Prayer  of  Jesus,  vers.  1-26. 

Contents. — The  chapter  on  which  we  now  enter  contains  what  is  generally  known 
as  our  Lord's  High-priestly  Prayer.  Such  a  name  is  appropriately  given  it ;  purtlj-^, 
because  it  is  the  longest  and  most  solemn  utterance  recorded  of  the  intercessions  with 
which  Jesus  approached  the  throne  of  His  heavenly  Father  on  His  people's  behalf; 
partly,  because  He  was  at  this  moment  standing  on  the  threshold  of  His  especial 
work  as  their  great  High  Priest.  No  attempt  to  describe  the  prayer  can  give  a  just 
idea  of  its  sublimity,  its  pathos,  its  toiiching  yet  exalted  character,  its  tone  at  once  of 
tenderness  and  triumphant  expectation.  We  are  apt  to  read  it  as  if  it  were  full  of 
sorrow ;  but  that  is  only  our  own  feeling  reflected  back  upon  what  we  suppose  to  have 
been  the  feelings  of  the  INIan  of  Sorrows.  In  the  prayer  itself  sorrow  has  no  place ; 
and  to  think  that  it  was  uttered  in  a  tone  of  sadness  is  entirely  to  mistake  what  must 
have  been  the  spirit  of  Jesus  at  the  time.  It  speaks  throughout  of  work  accom- 
plished, of  victory  gained,  of  the  immediate  expectation  of  glorious  reward.  It  tells, 
not  of  sorrow,  but  of  'joy,'  joy  now  possessing  His  own  soul,  and  about  to  be  'ful- 
filled '  in  His  disciples  (ver.  13).  It  anticipates  -svith  perfect  confidence  the  realization 
of  the  grand  object  of  His  coming,— the  salvation  of  all  that  have  been  given  Him 
(ver.  12),  their  union  to  Himself  and  the  Father  (ver.  21),  their  security  amidst  the 
evils  of  this  world  while  they  execute  in  it  a  mission  similar  to  His  (vers.  II,  15, 18), 
and,  finally,  their  glorification  with  His  own  glory  (ver.  24).  The  prayer,  in  fact, 
corresponds  closely  with  the  words  of  its  Ftterer  immediately  preceding  it,  '  Be  of 
good  courage,  I  have  overcome  the  world  '  (chap.  IG  :  33).  It  is  nothing  less  than  a 
prolonged  anticipation  of  the  shout  of  triumph  on  the  cross,  '  It  is  finished '  (chap.  19 : 
30).  The  prayer  divides  itself  naturally  into  three  parts,  in  the  first  of  which  Jesus 
praj's  for  Himself,  in  the  second  for  His  immediate  disciples,  in  the  third  for  all  who, 
in  every  age,  shall  believe  in  Him.  But  the  three  parts  are  pervaded  by  one  thought 
—the  glorification  of  the  Father  in  those  successively  prayed  for,  by  the  accomplish- 
ment in  each  of  the  Father's  purpose,  and  the  union  of  all  in  the  perfect,  the  spirit- 
ual, the  eternal  bond  of  love.  The  subordinate  parts  of  the  chapter  are  thus— (1) 
vers.  1-5  ;  (2)  vers.  6-19  ;  (3)  vers.  20-26. 


346  JOHN  XVII.  '[17:  1. 

[Here  is  holj-  ground  ;  here  is  the  gate  of  heaven.  No  such  prayer  was  ever  heard 
before  or  since.  It  could  be  uttered  only  by  the  Lord  and  Saviour  of  men,  the 
mighty  Intercessor  and  Mediator,  standing  between  heaven  and  earth  before  His 
wondering  disciples.  Even  He  could  pray  it  only  once,  in  the  most  momentous  crisis 
of  history,  in  full  view  of  the  approaching  sacriiice  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world, 
•which  occurred  but  once,  though  its  effect  vibrates  through  all  ages.  It  is  not  so 
much  the  petition  of  an  inferior  suppliant  as  a  dialogue  with  an  equal,  and  a  solemn 
declaration  of  His  will  and  His  mission.  He  intercedes  with  the  eternal  Jehovah  as 
the  partner  of  His  counsel,  as  the  executor  of  His  will  of  saving  mercy.  He  looks 
back  to  His  pre-mundane  glory  with  God  and  forward  to  the  resumption  of  that 
glory,  and  comprehends  all  His  present  and  future  disciples  in  unbroken  succession 
as  a  holy  and  blessed  brotherhood  in  vital  union  with  Himself  and  His  Father. 
While  speaking  to  the  Father,  He  teaches  the  disciples  who  were  to  carry  on  His 
work  to  the  grand  consummation.  The  nearest  parallel  to  this  prayer  of  consecration 
is  the  Thanksgiving  in  Matt.  11 :  25  sqq.  John  probably  made  a  very  early  memoran- 
dum of  all  the  principal  discourses  of  His  Lord.  The  prayer  was  not  uttered  in  the 
upper  chamber  which  was  left  after  chap.  14 :  31,  nor  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  but 
either  in  some  quiet  retreat  beneath  the  sky,  or  in  the  Temple  Court  on  Mt.  Moriah 
which  He  may  have  passed  on  the  way  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  (18 :  1).  The 
alleged  inconsistency  of  the  supreme  serenity  of  this  prayer  and  the  deep  depression 
of  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  is  only  apparent.  The  one  represents  the  divine  side, 
the  other  the  human  side  of  the  same  crisis.  In  principle  and  spirit  the  victory  was 
already  gained  (13  :  31) ;  in  point  of  fact  it  was  yet  to  be  achieved  through  the  terri- 
ble sufferings  of  the  approaching  hours  (14:  30).  Sudden  transitions  and  alterna- 
tions of  feeling  in  critical  trials  are  frequent  in  human  experience,  and  as  Dr.  West- 
cott  says  (in  his  Oom.,  p.  237)  made  "  more  intelligible  by  the  absolute  insight  and 
foresight  of  Christ."  He  could  see,  as  man  cannot  do,  both  the  completeness  of  hia 
triumph  and  the  suffering  through  which  it  was  to  be  gained.  Something  of  the 
same  kind  is  seen  in  the  conflict  of  deep  emotion  joined  with  words  of  perfect  confi- 
dence at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  (11 :  11,  23,  35,  38,  40  sqq.) ;  and  again  on  the  occasion 
of  the  visit  of  the  Greeks  (12  :  23,  27  sq.,  30  sqq.).  The  words  of  the  Sacerdotal 
Prayer  are  simple,  clear,  calm  and  serene,  but  the  thoughts  are  as  broad  and  deep  as 
God's  infinite  love,  and  all  efforts  to  exhaust  their  meaning  only  make  us  feel  the 
more  keenly  our  inability  to  fathom  their  depth  and  to  reach  their  height.  For 
some  remarkable  judgments  of  distinguished  divines  on  this  unique  chapter  in  this 
unique  Gospel,  see  Lange's  Com.,  p.  512. — P.  S.] 

Ver.  1,  These  things  spake  Jesus,  and  lifting  up  his  eyes 
to  heaven,  he  said.  Thus  the  Evangelist  connects  the  prayer  be- 
fore us  with  the  parting  discourse  contained  in  the  previous  chapters. 
It  is  offered  in  the  same  place,  while  the  disciples  stand  around,  and 
in  the  same  frame  of  mind  as  that  in  which  Jesus  had  just  spoken; 
so  that,  when  we  read  of  His  '  lifting  up  His  eyes  to  heaven,'  we  must 
think  of  them  as  full  alike  of  holy  devotion  and  of  the  consciousness 
of  completed  victory. — Father,  the  hour  is  come.  The  first  word 
of  the  prayer  is  '  Father  ;'*not  'our  Father'  as  in  the  Lord's  Prayer, 
but  simply  '  Father,'  and  so  throughout,  though  twice  with  '  righteous  ' 
or 'holy'  connected  with  the  same  (vers.  5,  11,  21,  24,  25).     The 


17:  2.]  JOHN  XVII.  847 

2  thy  Son,  that  the  Son  may  glorify  thee:  even  as  thou 
gavest  him  authority  over  all  flesh,  that  whatsoever 
thou  hast  given  him,  to  them  he  should  give  eternal 

word  sums  up  the  peculiar  revelation  of  this  Gospel,  and  expresses 
the  whole  consciousness  of  that  relation  to  God  in  which  '  the  only- 
begotten  Son  '  stood,  and  would  have  us  to  stand.  Yet  it  is  not  a  word 
of  tenderness  only,  but  of  authority  and  power :  if  it  stirs  alfection, 
it  awakens  also  reverence  and  awe.  '  The  hour '  referred  to  is  not 
merely  that  of  death,  or  of  death  as  a  transition  to  glory;  it  is  that 
in  which  the  Son  makes  perfect  the  accomplishment  of  the  Father's 
will  (comp.  2  :  4  ;  7:  30;  8  :  20  ;  13  :  32).  This  no  doubt  involves  alike 
the  death  and  the  exaltation  of  Jesus,  but  it  is  the  inner  character  of 
the  hour,  rather  than  its  outward  accompaniments,  that  is  mainly  re- 
ferred to  in  the  words,  '  The  hour  is  come.' — Glorify  thy  Son 
that  the  Son  may  glorify  thee.  On  the  meaning  of  'glorify' 
compare  what  has  been  said  at  13:  31,  32.  It  is  not  a  bestowal  of 
personal  glory  for  which  Jesus  prays,  for  such  a  thought  would  be 
out  of  keeping  Avith  the  mind  of  Him  who  never  sought  His  own 
glory,  and  would  compel  us  to  understand  the  word  '  glorify '  in  the 
first  clause  in  a  sense  wholly  dilferent  from  any  that  can  be  given  it 
in  the  second.  What  Jesus  prays  for  is,  that  the  Father  would  now 
withdraw  the  veil  which  had  hitherto  obscured  to  some,  and  concealed 
from  others,  the  '  glory '  belonging  to  the  Son's  unity  of  relation  to  the 
Father,  in  order  that  that  '  glory  '  of  the  Father  Himself,  which  is  the 
end  of  all  existence,  and  which  can  be  seen  only  in  the  Son,  may  thus 
shine  forth  in  the  sight  of  His  creatures  without  any  shadow  to  dim 
its  brightness.  The  former  is  the  means,  the  latter  is  the  end  (comp. 
11:  4).  The  transition  from  'Thy  Son'  to  'the  Son'  is  worthy  of 
notice,  the  former  including  an  appeal  to  personal  relationship,  the 
latter  bringing  especially  into  view  the  work  by  which  Jesus  '  declares ' 
the  Father  (comp.  1 :  18),  and  leads  men  into  the  condition  and  privi- 
leges of  sonship  (comp.  1:   12). 

Ver.  2.  Even  as  thou  gavest  him  authority  over  all  flesh, 
in  order  that  all  that  -which  thou  hast  given  him,  he  may 
give  unto  them  life  eternal.  This  verse  is  clearly  connected 
with  ver.  1.  It  unfolds  the  means  by  which  the  glorifying  of  the 
Father  is  to  be  accomplished:  and  the  first  clause  corresponds'  to 
'glorify'  Thy  Son,'  the  second  to  'that  the  Son  may  glorify  Thee.' 
To  the  Son  the  Father  gave  authority  over  all  flesh,  that  the  Son  on 
His  part  might  give  to  them  eternal  life.  The  words  'all  flesh'  (the 
Old  Testament  expression  for  '  all  men ' )  here  used  are  remarkable. 
No  words  could  more  powerfully  bring  out  that  universality  which  is 
so  characteristic  of  this  Gospel  and  this  prayer  ;  while,  .at  the  same 
time,  they  set  before  us  the  picture  of  all  humanity,  Gentile  as  well  as 
Jewish,  in  its  weakness  and  sinfulness,  in  its  want  of  the  power  of 
the  Spirit,  in  its  separation  from  that  spiritual  and  eternal  life  in 


348  JOHN  XVII.  [17:  3. 

3  life.     And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they  should  know 
thee  the  only  true  God,  and  him  whom  thou  didst 

■which  alone  it  accomplishes  its  destiny  and  attains  to  the  completion 
of  its  joy.  Over  all  men  the  Son  received  authority  that  if  they 
would  only  listen  to  Him  they  might  be  saved :  thus  the  Father  glo- 
rifies the  Son.  By  the  execution  of  this  mission,  again,  and  by  the 
giving  of  life  eternal  to  all  believers,  the  Son  glorities  the  Father. 
The  commission,  in  short,  was  glory  to  the  Son:  the  execution  was 
glory  to  the  Father  :  and  the  prayer  is,  that  the  loving  purpose  of  the 
Father  may  be  accomplished  in  the  visible  glory  properly  belonging  to 
it.  The  peculiar  structure  of  this  verse,  by  which  Jesus  first  presents 
those  spoken  of  as  a  connected  whole,  and  then  proceeds  to  refer  to 
them  in  their  more  individual  aspect,  has  already  been  spoken  of  (see 
on  6  :  37) ;  and  in  the  commentary  on  the  same  passage  we  have  also 
seen  that  under  the  words  'all  that  which  Thou  hast  given  Him,'  we 
are  not  to  think  of  any  absolute,  predestinating  decree  having  no  re- 
gard to  the  moral  and  spiritual  character  of  those  thus  '  given.'  Their 
moral  and  spiritual  state  is  rather  the  prominent  thought ;  they  are 
believers  ;  they  possess  eternal  life.  It  is  true  that  this  is  to  be  traced 
to  the  'drawing'  of  the  Father.  From  Him  alone  comes  every  per- 
fect gift ;  they  are  in  themselves  only  weak  and  sinful  flesh ;  but,  at 
the  stage  at  which  we  view  them  here,  the  working  of  prevenient 
grace  is  long  since  past;  the  Father  has  called  them,  and  they  have 
answered  the  call :   then  they  are  viewed  as  '  given.' 

Ver.  3.  And  this  is  the  eternal  life,  that  they  may  learn 
to'know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  him -whom  thou  didst 
send,  Jesus,  as  Christ.  The  article  is  used  before  '  eternal  life  '  in 
order  to  carry  our  thoughts  back  to  the  '  life  eternal '  of  ver  2  ;  and 
the  conception  involved  in  these  words  is  now  dwelt  upon  in  medita- 
tion which  finds  utterance  because  of  the  disciples  who  heard  (comp. 
11 :  42).  Tnerefore  when  Jesus,  with  His  mind  full  of  the  thought 
of  the  glorification  of  the  Father  and  the  Son,  speaks  of  the  eternal 
life  bestowed  upon  His  people,  He  turns  to  the  manner  in  which, 
through  the  reception  of  that  life,  such  a  glorification  shall  be  ef- 
fected by  them.  Two  points  must  be  kept  in  view  while  we  endea- 
vor to  understand  the  words: — (1)  The  force  of  'that;'  this  word 
sets  before  us  the  '  knowing '  as  a  goal  towards  which  we  are  to  strain 
our  elForts.  (2)  That  the  word  'know'  does  not  mean  to  know 
fully  or  to  recognise,  but  to  learn  to  know :  it  expresses  not  perfect, 
but  inceptive  and  ever-growing  knowledge.  Those,  then,  who  re- 
ceive '  eternal  life '  enter  into  a  condition  in  which  they  learn  to 
know  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  they  really  are, — learn  to  know 
Them  in  Their  love  and  saving  mercy, — and  are  thus  enabled  to 
'  glorify '  Them.  The  knowledge  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  nei- 
ther the  condition  of  the  '  life '  nor  the  same  thing  as  the  '  life.'  It 
is  rather  that  far-off  goal  which  is  constantly  before  us,  and  to  which 


17:  8.]  JOHN  XVII.  349 

we  come  ever  nearer,  in  proportion  as  we  enter  more  deeply  into 
the  life  which  Christ  bestows.  The  '  life/  on  the  other  hand,  is  that 
state  in  which  we  are  introduced  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  the  state  in  which  we  learn  to  know  Them  with  con- 
stantly-increasing clearness  and  fulness,  and  finally  the  state  in  which, 
when  life  is  perfected  in  us,  we  come  to  know  Them  as  They  are, 
to  '  see '  Them,  and  to  '  be  like '  Them  (comp.  1  John  3  :  2).  Strictly 
speaking,  the  knowledge  is  thus  dependent  on  the  life,  rather  than 
the  life  on  the  knowledge.  But,  in  truth,  the  interdependence  is  mu- 
tual ;  neither  can  exist  without  the  other  ;  there  is  no  life  which  does 
not  lead  to  knowledge  ;  there  is  no  knowledge  without  life.  The 
'  eternal  life'  is  thus  also  a  present  thing,  stretching  indeed  into  the 
endless  future,  but  begun  now.  The  constituents  of  the  knowledge 
are  also  given.  They  are  first  to  be  viewed  as  two  ;  and  each  has  a 
distinguishing  attributive  connected  with  it.  The  first  is  God  :  He  is 
the  '  only  true  God.'  We  cannot  exclude  from  these  words  the  thought 
of  a  contrast  to  heathen  divinities ;  for  the  Gentiles  are  here  present 
to  the  mind  of  Him  who  prays  for  all  that  are  to  believe  in  Him.  But, 
if  so,  we  must  recognize  in  them  an  allusion  to  the  cardinal  formula 
of  Judaism,  'The  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord'  (Deut,  6:4);  and  the 
force  of  such  an  allusion  in  its  present  use  we  shall  see  immediately. 
In  addition  to  this,  however,  the  word  '  true '  has  also  its  meaning 
real.  This  God  whom  we  are  to  know  is  the  foundation  of  all  real 
being,  the  God  in  whom  all  things  are  that  are,  and  thus  as  *  true '  the 
'  only  '  God.  The  second  constituent  of  the  knowledge  is  Jesus  :  He 
is  Christ, — God's  anointed  One,  the  Messiah.  In  a  chapter  where  so 
much  importance  is  attached  to  the  word  'name,'  we  are  justified  in 
thinking  that  the  name  '  Jesus '  is  here  regarded  in  its  proper  mean- 
ing of  '  Saviour : '  it  expresses  what  the  word  '  Me  '  would  not  express 
with  anything  like  similar  fulness.  These  two  constituents  of  the 
knowledge  spoken  of  are  next  to  be  viewed  as  one  ;  for  the  fact  that 
the  words  '  Him  whom  Thou  didst  send  '  precede  the  name  '  Jesus,'  as 
well  as  the  whole  teaching  of  this  Gospel,  suggests  not  the  thought  of 
God  and  Christ  but  of  God  in  Christ,  of  God  declaring  Himself  in  Him 
whom  He  'sent.'  Herein,  therefore,  lies  the  truth,  that  the  one  God 
whom  Israel  so  vainly  boasted  that  it  knew  could  only  be  '  known  '  in 
connection  with,  and  by  means  of  the  knowledge  of,  .Jesus.  Hence, 
also,  we  need  not  wonder  that  Jesus  here  names  Himself  in  the  third 
Person  instead  of  the  first.  He  is  giving  expression  in  its  most  purely 
objective  form  to  the  sum  of  saving  knowledge.  To  effect  this  the 
second  clause  mentioning  this  knowledge  has  to  be  combined  with  the 
first:  it  must,  therefore,  be  presented  not  less  objectively  ;  and  thus, 
seeing  this  knowledge  as  it  were  without  Himself,  our  Lord  speaks 
not  of  '  Me '  but  of  '  Jesus.'  Had  such  a  use  been  unsuitable  to  prayer, 
it  would  be  as  difficult  to  account  for  it  from  the  pen  of  the  Evangelist 
(on  the  supposition  that  the  words  are  moulded  by  him)  as  from  the 
lips  of  Jesus.* 

*  The  words  of  this  verse  are  so  important  that  it  may  be  well  to  explain  more  fully 


350  JOHN  XVII.  [17:  4,5. 

4  send,  even  Jesus  Christ.     I  glorified  thee  on  the  earth, 
having  accomplished  the  work  which  thou  hast  given 

5  me  to  do.     And  now,  O  Father,  glorify  thou  me  with 
thine  own  self  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with  thee 

Ver.  4.  The  first  petition  of  Jesus  in  this  prayer  had  been  '  glorify 
Thy  Son.'  That  petition  is  now  to  be  repeated  in  a  more  emphatic 
manner  (ver.  5),  but  first  we  have  a  fuller  statement  of  the  ground 
on  which  it  rests.  In  vers.  2,  3,  the  petition  had  been  connected  with 
the  design  of  the  Father ;  now  it  is  connected  with  the  accomplishment 
of  that  design  ;  and  the  general  prayer  for  glorification  is  to  rise  into 
the  prayer  '  Glorify  Thou  Me  now.'  This  glorifying  of  the  Father  is 
said  to  have  taken  place  '  on  the  earth,'  that  is,  amidst  the  humilia- 
tions and  sorrows  of  the  Lord' s  earthly  life.  There  in  word,  and  deed, 
andsuff"ering  even  unto  death,  Jesus  revealed  the  Father's  loving  will 
for  the  salvation  of  men  ;  there  He  accomplished  the  purpose  for  which 
the  Father  sent  Him  ;  there  He  glorified  the  Father.  All  is  spoken  of 
as  past,  for  the  whole  work  of  Jesus  is  at  this  moment  looked  upon  as 
finished.  It  is  not  indeed  entirely  finished,  for  He  has  not  yet  been 
nailed  to  the  cross  ;  but  that  final  part  of  it  may  still  be  connected  in 
thought  with  the  whole  suffering  life,  and  may  be  spoken  of  as  if  it 
had  Iseen  met.  All  the  life  of  Jesus  had  been  a  death  ;  in  all  of  it  He 
had  been  accomplishing  His  work  and  glorifying  the  Father :  the  one 
step  still  remaining,  and  already  fully  taken  in  will,  may  thus  be 
easily  associated  with  the  rest,  and  the  whole  be  contemplated  as  over. 

Ver.  5.  The  glory  prayed  for  is  distinguished  by  two  particulars  : 
(1)  It  is  'with  Thine  own  Self  (comp.  13:  31,  32),  in  contrast  with 
the  words  '  on  earth  '  of  ver.  4.  (2)  It  is  a  glory  that  Jesus  had  pos- 
sessed 'before  the  world  was;'  that  is,  from  eternity.  Thus  the 
prayer  is  that  the  clouds  which  during  His  earthly  life  had  obscured 
the  glory  of  His  Divine  Souship  may  be  rolled  back,  and  that  as  Son 
of  man  (as  well  as  Son  of  God)  it  may  now  appear  that  He  possesses 
that  glory  in  all  the  brightness  with  which  it  encompassed  Him  before 
He  came  into  the  world  (comp.  13:  32).  The  word  'glory,'  in  short, 
is  to  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  glory  to  be  manifested  as  well  as  in 

in  a  note  that  in  the  clauses  attached  to  '  learn  to  know '  there  in  probably  a  fusion  of 
two  thoughts ; 

rthat  Thou  art  the  only  true  God. 
learn  to  know  < 

(Thee  as  the  only  true  God. 

( that  Jesus  whom  thou  sentest  is  Christ, 
learn  to  know  < 

( Jesus  whom  Thou  sentest  as  Christ. 

The  predicative  'Christ '  requires  the  verb  to  express  knowledge  of  a /ac< :  the  im- 
pression given  by  the  verse  is  that  great  stress  belongs  to  '  know  '  in  the  sense  of  ac- 
quaintance with  a  Person. 


17:  6,  7.]  JOHN  XVII.  351 

6  before  the  world  was.  I  manifested  thy  name  unto 
the  men  whom  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the  world  :  thine 
they  were,  and  thou  gavest  them  to  me  ;   and  they 

7  have  kept  thy  word.     Now  they  know  that  all  things 

a  sense  expressing  the  contents  of  the  glory  ;  and  the  petition  is  for  a 
bestowal  of  the  manifested  glory  rather  than  that  of  the  original  real 
glory  considered  in  itself.  Thus  the  unity  of  thought  in  the  whole 
passage  is  preserved.  Not  the  Son's  personal  exaltation,  but  the 
Father's  glory  through  the  Son's,  is  still  the  keynote  ;  for,  when  the 
glory  of  the  Son  is  seen  the  glory  of  the  Father  is  seen  also.  With 
this  petition  the  first  section  of  the  prayer  closes. 

Ver.  6.  Jesus  now  passes  to  the  thought  of  those  disciples  who  had 
been  led  to  rest  on  Him  in  faith.  His  work  was  over ;  theirs  was  to 
begin ;  and  it  involved  a  struggle  and  needed  strength,  similar  to  His 
own.  In  tenderest  pity  and  love,  therefore,  He  now  prays  for  them, 
that  they  may  be  preserved  as  He  has  been.  Yet  not  their  preserva- 
tion, but  the  glory  of  the  Father,  is  still  the  leading  thought.  Jesus 
is  glorified  in  them  (ver.  lOj,  and  when  He  is  glorified  the  glorifica- 
tion of  the  Father  is  secured.  First  of  all  their  position  is  described  ; 
they  have  so  entered  into  and  embraced  the  '  word '  of  Jesus  that  the 
great  purpose  of  His  coming  has  been  answered  in  them,  and  they  are 
fitted  to  take  His  place  in  the  world.  That  '  word "  had  been  espe- 
cially the  '  name '  of  God,  His  name  as  '  Father,'  including  His  cha- 
racter. His  attributes.  His  saving  will  as  revealed  in  Jesus.  The 
whole  purpose  of  God's  Fatherly  love  had  been  embraced  by  them  as 
tidings  of  great  joy  both  for  themselves  and  for  the  world.  They  had 
been  given  to  the  Son  by  the  Father  'out  of  the  world ; '  that  is,  they 
were  no  longer  in  the  world  as  the  element  of  their  existence.  The 
position  is  exactly  His  own  (ver.  14),  so  that  even  already  we  see  how 
closely  they  are  identified  with  Him,  and  are  fitted,  as  taking  His 
place,  to  lift  men  up  into  their  own  higher  sphere.  Thine  they 
•were,  and  to  me  thou  gavest  them, — That  is  the  Divine  side. 
The  change  of  order  from  the  same  words  as  used  in  the  earlier  part 
of  the  verse  ought  to  be  noticed.  The  emphasis  is  now  directed  to 
*  Me,'  and  the  meaning  is  that  they  were  now  by  Divine  appointment 
the  Son's,  that  they  might  take  up  His  work. — And  they  have 
kept  thy  -word.  This  is  the  human  side.  They,  on  their  part,  had 
answered  the  purpose  of  the  Father :  they  had  kept  the  *  word '  of 
God;  not  the  general  revelation  of  His  will,  but  the  revelation  of  the 
Logos,  of  the  'Word,'  in  the  soul.  In  the  Word  of  God  they  have 
God's  word  in  them.  How  completely  are  they  put  into  the  position 
of  Him  who  is  now  *  going  away  ! ' 

Ver.  7.  Now  have  they  learned  to  know  that  all  things 
whatsoever  thou  gavest  me  are  from  thee.  These  words  do 
more  than  state  that  the  disciples  knew  this  fact.  They  include  a  far 
deeper  meaning,  intended  to  bring  out  more  fully  the  position  of  the 


352  JOHN  XVII.  [17:  8,9. 

8  whatsoever  thou  hast  given  me  are  from  thee :  for  the 
words  whicli  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  unto  them; 
and  they  received  them,  and  knew  of  a  truth  that  I 
came  forth  from  thee,  and  they  believed  that  thou 

9  didst  send  me.  I  ^  pray  for  them  :  I  '  pray  not  for 
the  world,  but  for  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me; 

1  Gr.  make  request. 

disciples  as  the  representatives  of  Jesus.  For  what  was  it  that  He 
knew?  It  was  that  all  He  had  was  from  the  Father;  that  all  He  was 
was  the  reflex  of  the  Father ;  that  His  words,  His  works.  His  whole 
activity,  were  the  Father's ;  that  He  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and 
was  sent  by  Him  into  the  world  (3  :  13  ;  6:  46  ;  7:  29  ;  3:  34;  13:  3). 
This  was  the  consciousness  which  especially  distinguished  Him  in  the 
fulfilling  of  His  mission  ;  and  now  that  consciousness  has  passed  over 
into  them. 

Ver.  8.  Because  the  words  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have 
given  them,  and  they  received  them,  and  learned  to  know- 
truly  that  I  came  forth  from  thee,  and  believed  that  thou 
didst  send  me.  These  words  explain  the  fact  stated  immediately 
before.  The  disciples  had  received  a  consciousness  similar  to  that  of 
Jesus,  because  He,  on  His  part,  had  implanted  His  words  in  them: 
and  they,  on  their  part,  had  responded,  receiving  what  He  gave. 
They  'received,'  'learned  to  know,'  'believed:'  the  three  verbs, 
closely  following  each  other  in  the  same  tense,  correspond  to  the  so- 
lemnity of  the  statement.  Again,  however,  we  see  that  far  more  is 
meant  than  the  reception  of  particular  truths :  the  main  thought  is, 
that  He  has  transferred  His  own  mind  to  His  disciples,  that  He  has 
taught  them  His  own  truths  and  thoughts,  and  that  they,  while  re- 
taining their  own  proper  individuality  (the  word  they  before  'received' 
being  equivalent  to  'they  themselves'),  have  fully  made  them  their 
own. 

Ver.  9.  I  ask  concerning  them ;  I  ask  not  concerning  the 
w^orld,  but  concerning  them  whom  thou  hast  given  me. 
In  the  preceding  verses  the  mind  of  Jesus  has  been  filled  with  the 
thought  of  the  position  of  the  disciples  ;  He  now  proceeds  directly  to 
pray  for  them ;  and  the  substance  of  His  prayer  is  that  they,  occupy- 
ing His  place,  may  be  so  preserved  as  to  be  what  He  had  been — true 
to  the  word  given  them,  victorious  over  the  devil,  consecrated,  filled 
with  joy,  to  His  glory  and  the  glory  of  the  Father  in  Him.  So  fully, 
too,  are  His  thoughts  occupied  with  them,  that  the  whole  energy  of 
His  prayer  is  devoted  to  them  alone.  He  will  not  for  the  present  ask 
concerning  the  enemy  to  be  assailed,  but  about  the  assailants  who  are 
to  take  His  place.  Without  denouncing  the  'world,'  therefore.  He 
simply  sets  it  aside.  It  may  indeed  be  asked.  Why  mention  it  at  all? 
The  answer  probably  is,  to  bring  out  that  perfect  correspondence  be- 


17:10,11.]  JOHN  XVII.  353 

10  for  they  are  thine:  and  all  things  that  are  mine  are 
thine,  and  tiiine  are  mine ;  and  I  am  glorified  in  them. 

11  And  I  am  no  more  in  the  world,  and  these  are  in  the 
world,  and  I  come  to  thee.  Holy  Father,  keep  them 
in  thy  name  which  thou  hast  given  me,  that  they 

tween  the  will  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Father,  which  is  the  ground  of 
the  Son's  confidence  in  prayer.  Hence  the  emphatic  '  I'  with  which 
the  verse  begins — '  I,  wlio  came  forth  from  the  Father,  who  am  sent 
of  the  Father  (ver.  8) ;  I,  who  am  the  perfect  expression  of  the  Father, 
willing  only  what  He  wills — I  do  not  go  beyond  those  whom  He  has 
given  Me.'  This  last  thought  then  finds  utterance. — Because  they 
are  thine.  In  ver.  t>  it  had  been — 'They  were  thine;'  then  they 
had  been  looked  at  only  as  the  possession  of  the  Father.  Now  'they 
are  thine:'  they  have  been  brought  back  to  Him  and  united  to  Him 
in  a  closer,  dearer  bond  than  ever — ^the  bond  of  fellowship  in  the  Son. 

Ver.  10.  And  all  things  that  are  mine  are  thine,  and  thine 
mine,  and  I  have  been  glorified  in  them.  It  does  not  seem 
necessary  to  regard  the  two  first  clauses  of  this  verse  as  a  parenthesis, 
and  to  restrict  the  last  words  '  in  them  '  to  the  disciples  only  who  had 
been  spoken  of  in.  ver.  9.  Jesus  seems  rather  to  be  carried  away  by 
the  thought  that  disciples  one  with  Him  were  as  truly  one  with  His 
Father,  to  another  and  a  more  glorious  thought,  that  all  that  He  pos- 
sessed was  His  Father's,  and  all  that  was  His  Father's  was  His,  so 
real,  so  intimate,  so  deep  is  the  unity  between  Them.  In  all  things, 
then,  though  (it  may  be)  especially  in  His  disciples.  He  has  been  glo- 
rified. But  His  being  glorified  in  them  is  really  the  Father's  being  so, 
because  the  glory  flows  from  their  lecognition  of  Him,  and  their  fel- 
lowship with  Him,  as  the  Son.  From  every  thought  of  the  prayer  we 
must  ascend  to  the  Father,  that  glorious  Name  in  which,  with  its 
blended  authority  and  love,  are  given  the  order  and  the  happiness  of 
all  creation. 

Ver.  11.  And  I  am  no  longer  in  the  world,  and  they  are 
in  the  world,  and  I  come  to  thee.  One  thought  rising  before 
the  mind  of  Jesus  now  deepens  His  earnestness  of  entreaty  on  behalf 
of  His  disciples — the  contrast  between  their  condition  and  His  own. 
His  labors  and  sorrows  are  over ;  but  they  are  left  behind  in  the  strug- 
gle which  He  is  leaving.  The  very  greatness  of  His  joy  in  the  thought 
of  His  own  glorious  return  to  His  Father  rouses  his  tenderest  sympa- 
thy for  those  who  have  so  much  to  do  and  to  suffer  before  they  can 
share  His  joy. — Holy  Father,  keep  them  in  thy  name  which 
thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one  even  as  w^e  are. 
In  ver.  1  we  had  simply  'Father;'  we  have  now  'Holy'  prefixed  to 
that  name.  The  reason  is  obvious.  '  Holy '  does  not  express  mere 
freedom  from  sin ;  He  who  is  holy  is  entirely  separated  from  all  that 
is  carnal  and  outward  in  this  present  world,  so  that  pure  spirituality 
and  heavenliuess  alone  rule  in  Him.  As,  therefore,  a  state  similar  to 
23 


354  JOHN  XVII.  [17:  12. 

12  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are.  While  I  was  with 
them,  I  kept  them  in  thy  name  which  thou  hast 
given  me :  and  I  guarded  them,  and  not  one  of  them 
perished,  but  the  son  of  perdition ;  that  the  scripture 

this  is  that  to  which  God  would  raise  His  people,  the  epithet  '  Holy ' 
brings  this  thought  prominently  into  view,  and  strengthens  the  argu- 
ment of  the  prayer.  The  petition  is  that,  for  the  purpose  mentioned 
in  the  last  words  of  the  verse,  they  may  be  kept  in  the  Father's  name, 
which  He  has  given  to  the  Son.  Light  is  again  thrown  upon  the  word 
'name.'  It  cannot  be  simply  the  name  'Father,'  for  that  could  not 
be  given  to  another :  it  is  His  revelation  of  Himself  in  Jesus.  That 
revelation  had  been  given  to  the  Son ;  it  had  been  appropriated  by  the 
disciples ;  they  were  living  in  it :  the  prayer  is  that,  amidst  all  the 
temptations  of  the  world,  they  may  be  kept  in  it.  Then  follows  the 
purpose,  that  they  may  be  one  '  even  as'  are  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
It  is  the  Divine  unity  of  love  that  is  referred  to,  all  wills  bowing  in 
the  same  direction,  all  affections  burning  with  the  same  flame,  all  aims 
directed  to  the  same  end — one  blessed  harmony  of  love. 

Ver.  12.  It  is  out  of  the  fulness  of  His  heart  that  Jesus  continues 
to  speak.  The  sad  change  that  is  to  take  place  in  the  condition  of 
His  disciples  after  He  has  'gone  away'  presses  on  His  mind;  He  re- 
calls tenderly  the  care  with  which  He  had  hitherto  watched  over  them 
in  an  evil  world ;  and  now  that  He  can  no  longer  show  that  care,  He 
commends  them  with  longing  earnestness  to  the  Father.  He  does  this 
all  the  more  because  it  was  in  the  Father's  name  given  to  Himself 
that  He  had  kept  them — in  the  revelation  of  the  Father,  in  the  unity 
of  His  own  relation  to  the  Father,  in  the  consciousness  that  God  was 
their  Father  as  well  as  His  ;  so  that  the  Father  as  well  as  He  shall 
keep  them,  and,  in  keeping  them,  shall  only  continue  the  work  that 
He  had  Himself  begun.  The  word  'I'  is  very  emphatic— '  I  kept 
them:  now  do  Thou,'  The  distinction  between  'kept'  and  'guarded' 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  thought  of  different  spheres,  such  as  inward 
and  outward,  but  in  the  fact  that  the  latter  word  points  to  the  watch- 
fulness by  which  the  former  is  attained  (comp.  on  12:  47).  At  the 
same  time  the  difference  of  tense  in  the  original  is  worthy  of  notice, 
the  first  vei-b  expressing  continued  care,  the  second  the  completeness  of 
the  security  afforded.  Yet  one  dark  cloud  rested  on  the  bright  past, 
and  the  eyes  of  the  disciples  might  at  that  moment  be  directed  to  it. 
Judas  had  not  been  kept :  how  was  that  ?  To  this  Jesus  gives  an  an- 
swer in  these  words.  The  wonderful  fact  itself,  when  rightly  viewed, 
affords  evidence  that  He  has  fulfilled  His  promise  that  He  will  keep 
His  own.  It  was  in  carrying  out  the  Father's  will  that  not  one  of  the 
Eleven  had  been  lost :  it  was  in  carrying  out  the  same  will  that  Judas 
had  met  his  fate.  He  was  '  the  son  of  perdition,'  one  who  had  freely 
chosen  to  move  in  that  sphere  of  perishing,  and  therefore  he  perished. 
A  scripture,  too,  or  word  of  God  (Ps.  41 :  9,  already  quoted  in  chap. 


17:13,  14.]  JOHN  XVII.  355 

13  might  be  fulfilled.  But  now  I  come  to  thee ;  and 
these  things  I  speak  in  the  world,  that  they  may  have 

14  my  joy  fulfilled  in  themselves.  I  have  given  them 
thy  word;  and  the  world  hated  them,  because  they 
are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am  not  of  the  w  orld. 

13:  18),  had  declared  God's  will,  and  that  will  could  not  fail  to  be 
accomplished.  To  suppose  that  Judas  is  now  brought  before  us  as  one 
originally  doomed  to  perdition,  and  that  his  character  was  but  the 
evolving  of  his  doom,  would  contradict  not  only  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebraic  expression  'son  of  (which  always  takes  for  granted  moral 
choice),  but  the  whole  teaching  of  this  Gospel.  In  no  book  of  the 
New  Testament  is  the  idea  of  will,  of  choice  on  the  part  of  man, 
brought  forward  so  repeatedly  and  with  so  great  an  emphasis.  The 
history  of  man  is  taken  up  at  that  point  when  God's  previous  dealings 
with  him  have  prepared  him  for  the  exercise  of  a  choice  in  which  his 
responsibility  shall  appear.  How  far  this  previous  discipline  is  the 
result  of  absolute  decree  is  not  said ;  but  the  very  fact  that  it  is  disci- 
pline implies  that  the  result  might  have  been  other  than  it  is.  They 
in  whom  the  Father's  object  is  attained  are  those  'given'  to  the  Son, 
and  Judas,  therefore,  was  not  one  so  '  given.' 

Ver.  13.  But  now  I  come  to  thee.  These  words  are  to  be 
connected  with  what  follows  rather  than  with  what  precedes.  The 
thought  of  His  immediate  departure  leads  Jesus  to  pray  that  His  dis- 
ciples may  be  filled  with  a  joy  independent  of  His  personal  presence — 
*in  themselves.' — The  words  'these  things  I  speak'  refer  to  more 
than  the  fact  that  Jesus  is  at  present  praying — to  more  even  than  the 
actual  petition  at  present  on  His  lips.  He  has  in  view  the  substance 
of  His  prayer,  continually  taught  by  Him.  His  'joy'  was  fulfilled  in 
this,  that  the  name  of  His  Father  had  been  given  Him,  that  He  real- 
ized the  unity  with  His  Father  in  Avhich  He  stood.  He  had  led  the 
disciples  to  the  consciousness  that  they  too  were  in  that  name  of  the 
Father,  and  by  that  means  the  joy  that  was  His  had  become  theirs — 
it  was  '  fulfilled '  in  them.  In  answering  this  His  prayer  the  Father 
will  only  be  accomplishing  His  own  plan,  and  securing  His  own  glory 
through  the  glorification  of  the  disciples  in  the  Son.  '  In  the  world' 
does  not  mean  merely  '  upon  earth,'  but  in  the  midst  of  the  efforts  of 
the  world  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  Jesus. 

Ver.  14.  The  prayer  for  preservation  is  over:  our  Lord  now  speaks 
of  the  work  of  His  disciples  in  the  world.  In  ver.  8  He  had  said  'the 
words  {or  sayings)  which  Thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  them,'  and  the 
statement  had  been  immediately  followed  by  a  declaration  of  their 
personal  faith.  Here  He  says:  'I  have  given  them  Thy  word,'  and 
the  statement  is  followed  by  a  declaration  that  the  world  hated  them. 
We  see  at  once  the  advance  of  thought.  The  disciples  have  received 
the  Father's  word  for  utterance;  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  the 


356  JOHN  XVII.  [17:  15-17. 

15  I  ^pray  not  that  thou  shouldest  take  them  ^from  the 
world,  but  that  thou  shouldest  keep  them  ^from  ^the 

16  evil  one.     They  are  not  of  the  world,  even  as  I  am 

17  not  of  the  world.      ^Sanctify  them  in  the  truth  :  thy 

1  Gr.  make  request.  2  Qr.  out  of.  8  Or,  evil.  *  Or,  consecrate. 

•world,  which  might  have  known  nothing  of  them  had  they  only  nour- 
ished their  faith  in  secret,  becomes  their  persecutor.  How  closely  are 
they  again  identified  by  Jesus  with  Himself:  they  have  not  only  His 
peace,  His  joy,  but  His  work — the  very  peace,  the  very  joy  that  filled 
His  soul,  the  very  work  in  which  He  died  ! 

Ver.  15.  I  ask  not  that  thou  shouldest  take  them  out  of 
the  Tvorld,  but  that  thou  shouldest  keep  them  out  of  the 
evil  one.  The  disciples  are  in  the  world,  and  Jesus  cannot  yet  pray 
that  they  may  be  taken  out  of  it,  for  it  is  the  very  purpose  of  the 
Father  that  they  shall  be  left  in  it  to  carry  on  His  work.  What  He 
does  pray  for  is,  that,  as  their  work  and  His  will  be  identical,  so  also 
their  preservation  may  be  identical,  with  His  own.  The  element  dis- 
tinguishing His  preservation  had  been  that  mentioned  in  14:30 — a 
total  separation  between  the  prince  of  this  world  and  Him.  The  same 
complete  separation  He  would  now  have  for  them,  not  merely  that 
they  may  be  delivered  from  attacks  of  the  evil  one,  but  also  that  they 
may  be  kept  'out  of  '  him,  may  have  no  fellowship  with  him,  no 
weakening  of  their  testimony  by  yielding  to  him,  but  may  be  single, 
pure  and  faithful  to  the  last  as  He  had  been  been.  The  expression: 
*to  be  kept  out  of  the  evil  one'  may  surprise  the  reader  until  he  re- 
members that  in  1  John  5 :  19,  20,  the  Apostle  really  speaks  of  the 
woi'ld  as  lying  '  in  the  evil  one.'  The  teaching  of  this  Gospel  and  of 
the  whole  New  Testament  is  that  there  are  two  spheres  in  which  man 
may  live,  that  of  the  world  and  its  prince,  and  that  of  '  Jesus  Christ.' 
(Compare  the  many  passages  which  speak  of  the  Christian  as  '  in 
Christ.')  Our  prayer  ought  to  be,  not  that  we  may  be  kept  *  from' 
the  one,  but  that  we  may  be  kept  '  out '  of  the  one  and  '  in '  the  other. 

Ver.  16.  These  words  met  us  in  ver.  14,  but  they  are  again  intro- 
duced in  a  slightly  diflPerent  order,  the  emphasis  being  now  thrown  on 
'of  the  world,'  in  order  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  complete  antithesis 
to  be  immediately  expressed. 

Ver.  17.  Consecrate  them  in  the  truth :  thy  word  is  truth. 
The  word  here  rendered  '  Consecrate  '  is  constantly  used  in  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  to  express  the  entire  dedication  both 
of  persons  and  of  things  to  God..  In  this  sense,  but  with  the  deeper 
meaning  of  inward  and  spiritual  consecration,  we  find  it  here.  It  is 
thus,  when  applied  to  persons,  not  less  but  more  than  sanctifi cation, 
the  latter  being  implied  before  the  former  can  take  place.  The  word 
corresponds  to  the  attribute  prefixed  to  'Father'  in  ver.  11  (for 
which,  however,  we  have  in  English  no  other  word  than  '  holy')  :  the 


17:18,19.]  JOHN  XVII.  357 

18  word  is  truth.    As  thou  didst  send  me  into  the  world, 

19  even  so  send  I  them  into  the  world.     And  for  their 
sakes  I  ^sanctify  myself,  that   they  themselves    also 

1  Or,  consecrate. 

same  word,  too,  is  used  by  Jesus  of  Himself  in  10 :  36.  To  be  con- 
secrated is,  therefore,  to  be  separated  from  the  world,  to  be  dedicated 
as  a  holy  tiling  to  God.  This  is  to  be  done  'in  the  truth,' — in  that 
sphere  of  the  truth  which  is  the  sphere  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son ; 
in  living  communion  with,  and  appropriation  of,  the  truth,  so  that  the 
truth  shall  be  that  in  which  their  whole  being  is  moulded  and  conse- 
crated. This  meaning  of  '  the  truth'  is  then  more  fully  brought^out  by 
the  statement,  'Thy  word  is  truth.'  Here  by  '  word'  we  are  not  to 
understand  the  word  of  God  in  general,  but  the  word  already  spoken 
of  in  ver.  14, — that  special  word  of  the  Father  which  is  found  in  His 
revelation  of  Himself  in  the  Son,  the  Word.  And  this  word  is 
'  truth '  in  its  most  absolute  sense,  truth  which  finds  concrete  expres- 
sion in  '  the  truth.'  It  is  the  '  truth  '  that  came  by  Jesus  Christ, — not 
merely  truth  in  opposition  to  error,  but  the  eternal  reality  of  things 
in  contrast  Avith  that  which  is  unsubstantial  and  shadowy,  that  which 
must  pass  away. 

Yer.  18.  Even  as  thou  didst  send  me  into  the  world, 
I  also  sent  them  into  the  -world.  Jesus  has  prayed  for  the  con- 
secration of  HLs  disciples  in  the  truth,  and  He  now  speaks  of  the  ne- 
cessity that  existed  for  it.  They  have  been  sent  into  the  world  (the 
sending  is  viewed  as  already  accomplished)  'even  as'  He  had  been 
sent  into  the  world.  Not  merely  is  the  fact  of  sending  similar,  but  they 
are  sent  by  the  Son  with  the  same  commission  as  that  with  which  the 
Son  Himself  had  been  sent  by  the  Father.  They  are  to  '  declare '  the 
Father  as  He  had  done,  and  to  make  the  same  revelation  of  eternal 
truth,  of  eternal  love,  to  a  sinful  world.  How  much,  then,  did  they 
need  a  consecration  like  His  !  But  not  only  so.  There  is  a  further 
ground  upon  which  His  prayer  for  their  consecration  rests. 

Ver.  19.  And  for  them  I  consecrate  myself,  that  they 
themselves  also  may  be  consecrated  in  truth.  It  was  for  the 
very  purpose  of  bringing  them  to  a  consecration  like  His  own  that 
His  whole  work  of  love  and  sacrifice  had  been  freely  undertaken.  He 
might  have  said  '  I  was  consecrated,'  a  thought  which  has  its  perfect 
parallel  in  10:  36.  But  He  speaks  of  consecrating  Himself,  partly 
because  He  entered  into  His  consecration  with  perfect  acquiescence  and 
freedom;  partly,  mainly,  because  He  is  thinking  of  that  High-priestly 
work  of  His  which  was  now  immediately  impending.  The  following 
words  express,  with  special  reference  to  the  disciples,  the  end  which 
Jesus  had  been  desirous  to  attain.  It  is  that  their  consecration  might 
be  the  exact  counterpart  of  His  ('  they  also ') ;  that  they  might  act  in 
it  a  free  and  independent  part,  devoting  themselves  in  personal  faith 
to  the  task  assigned  them  ( '  they  themselves  ' )  and  that  all  might  be 


358  JOHN  XVII.  [17:20,21. 

20  may  be  sanctified  in  truth.  Neither  for  these  only- 
do  I   ^  pray,  but  for  them  also   that   believe  on  me 

21  through  their  word  ;  that  they  may  all  be  one ;  even 
as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee,  that  they 
also  may  be  in  us ;    that  the  world  may  believe  that 

1  Gr.  make  request. 

done  '  in  truth,' — in  conformity  with  the  real,  the  essential,  the  ever- 
lasting (comp.  on  ver.  17).  Finally,  let  us  notice  that  the  consecra- 
tion spoken  of  is,  alike  in  the  case  of  Jesus  and  of  His  disciples,  not  a 
process  but  an  act  completed  at  once, — in  His  case,  when,  gathering  to- 
gether in  one  view  all  His  labors  and  sufferings.  He  presented  thein  a 
living  sacrifice  to  His  Father:  in  theirs,  when  they  are  in  like  manner 
enabled  to  present  themselves  as  living  sacrifices  in  His  one  perfect 
sacrifice.  Thus  the  second  section  of  the  prayer  closes,  its  main  bur- 
den having  been  that  the  disciples,  who  are  about  to  be  sent  forth  into 
the  world  in  order  to  carry  on  the  work  of  Jesus  there,  and  who  for 
this  purpose  have  had  the  name  of  the  Father  manifested  to  them  that 
they  may  proclaim  the  Father,  may  be  preserved  by  the  Father  from 
the  world,  and  may  be  enabled  to  exhibit  a  perfect  consecration  to  the 
Father's  work.  Thus  shall  the  Father  be  glorified  in  them  as  He  had 
been  glorified  in  the  Son,  who  accomplished  the  work  that  had  been 
given  Him  to  do. 

Ver.  20.  But  not  concerning  these  only  do  I  ask,  but  also 
concerning  them  v/ho  believe  in  me  through  their  -word 
From  the  thought  of  the  disciples  whom  He  was  sending  forth  to  carry 
on  His  work  Jesus  now  turns,  in  the  third  and  last  section  of  His 
prayer,  to  the  thought  of  all  who  through  their  word  shall  be  brought 
to  faith,  to  the  thought  of  believers  in  every  countryand  in  every  age. 
They  are  spoken  of  as  those  'who  believe,' — not  indeed  in  actual  fact, 
for  none  had  as  yet  believed  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  dis- 
ciples ;  but  in  the  idea  they  rise  before  the  mind  of  Jesus, — His  Church 
down  to  the  very  end  of  time.  The  '  word '  spoken  of  is  that  of  ver. 
14,  the  special  word  which  is  the  revelation  of  the  Father,  and  which 
bi-ings  man  to  recognise  the  love  of  the  Father  as  it  appears  in  the 
Son,  and  in  the  Son  to  them. 

Ver.  21.  The  petition  on  behalf  of  all  believers  follows  in  these 
words,  and  their  last  clause  expresses  it  in  its  highest  form.  The  sec- 
ond 'that'  is  neither  parallel  to  the  first,  nor  is  the  sentence  to  be  in- 
verted, as  if  it  ran,  '  that  they  themselves  also  may  be  in  us  as  Thou, 
Father, "art  in  Me  and  I  in  Thee.'  It  is  dependent  on  the  words  com- 
ing immediately  before,  and  thus  brings  forward  the  final  purpose  of 
the  Incarnation  of  the  Eternal  Son,  and  of  that  whole  work  of  His  by 
which  our  human  nature  was  perfected  into  union  with  the  Divine 
nature, — that  believing  men  may  be  taken  into  the  same  glorious 
unity.     The  unity  spoken  of,  then,  is  not  merely  that  of  Christians 


17:22,23.]  JOHN  XVII.  359 

22  thou  didst  send  me.     And  the  glory  which  thou  hast 
given  me  I  have  given  unto  them ;  that  they  may  be 

23  one,  even  as  we  are  one  ;  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me, 
that  they  may  be  perfected  into  one  ;  that  the  world 

among  themselves,  whether  outward  or  inward.  It  is  unity  in  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  effected  by  that  '  word '  regarding  the  Son  in  the 
Father  and  the  Father  in  the  Son  which  has  been  appropriated  in 
faith,  and  which  produces  a  result  corresponding  to  itself.  It  is  what 
is  known  by  divines  as  the  '  mystical  union  ;'  yet  in  it  believers  main- 
tain their  own  personality  and  freedom,  for  such  is  the  force  of  '  they 
themselves.' — That  the  world  may  believe  that  thou  didst 
send  me.  The  first  'that'  here  is  not  to  be  connected  with  a  verb 
so  far  removed  as  *  I  ask  '  of  ver.  20.  It  is  a  word  of  purpose,  mark- 
ing the  ultimate  result  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  prayer.  And  this  re- 
sult is  that  the  '  world,'  now  the  enemy  of  the  truth,  may  be  brought 
to  faith.  Although  (ver.  9)  Jesus  had  not  prayed  for  the  world,  be- 
cause He  was  praying  for  those  who  were  to  act  upon  it.  He  was  not 
forgetful  of  its  need.  It  was  the  world  that  He  had  come  to  save; 
and,  although  it  rejected  and  crucified  Him,  He  looked  onward  to  a 
time  when,  as  '  greater  works  '  were  done  by  His  disciples  than  He 
Himself  had  done  (14:  12),  the  world  would  own  the  Divine  power  ap- 
pearing in  them,  and  the  Divine  origin  of  His  mission.  It  is  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  Church,  however,  that  (so  far  as  has  yet  been  spoken  ofj  is 
to  effect  this  end.  Her  unity  is  included,  but  it  does  not  receive  its 
special  emphasis  till  we  come  to  ver.  23.  Her  spirituality  is  mainly 
before  us  here,  that  life  which  her  members  live,  not  conformed  to  the 
world, — not  coming  down  to  the  level  of  the  world,  with  the  vain  idea 
that  thus  they  shall  bring  the  world  nearer  them,  but  ever  rising 
as  far  as  possible  above  the  world,  dwelling  in  the  Father  and  in  the 
Son,  a  city  of  God,  from  which  even  now  there  streams  light  that  shall 
kindle  light  in  hearts  formed  for  light  and  life  like  its  own. 

Ver.  22.  Jesus  had  prayed  that  all  believers  might  be  one  as  He 
and  the  Father  were  one.  He  now  turns  to  what  He  Himself  had  done 
that  He  might  effect  this  end.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  '  glory  ' 
referred  to  is  that  of  self-sacrificing  love,  brought  out  from  amidst  the 
taunts  with  which  men  met  it  when  displayed  in  Jesus,  and  owned  by 
the  Father  as  the  only  true  glory.  Such  a  glory  Jesus  had  given  to 
His  people  that,  in  living  fellowship  with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  they 
may  be  one  in  Them.  Not  worldly  honor  or  station,  the  favor  of 
kings,  the  patronage  of  statesmen,  or  the  wealth  of  nations,  was  their 
glory  ;  but  the  gift  to  love,  and  to  sacrifice  themselves  for  the  world's 
good.  Then  in  that  love  would  they  be  one,  even  as  the  Father  and 
the  Son  are  one.  ^ 

Ter.  23.  That  is :  not  only  that  this  oneness  may  be  reached,  but 
that,  in  its  being  so,  the  last  step  to  be  taken  with  believers  may  be 
accomplished,  the  final  issue  and  perfecting  of  all  that  Jesus  has  to  do 


360  JOHN  XVII.  [17:  24. 

may  know  that  thou  didst  send  me,  and  lovedst  them, 
24  even  as  thou  lovedst  me.  Father,  Hhat  which  thou 
hast  given  me,  I  will*  that,  where  I  am,  they  also 
may  be  with  me;  that  they  may  behold  my  glory, 
which  thou   hast   given  me  :     for   thou  lovedst  me 

^  Many  ancient  authorities  read  those  whom. 
*  For  "  I  will  "  read  "  I  desire." — Am.  Com. 
for  them.  Whereupon  follows  again  the  eflFect  to  be  produced  upon 
the  world,  stated,  however,  in  a  fuller  form  than  in  ver.  21. — That 
the  -world  may  learn  to  kno^w  that  thou  didst  send  me,  and 
lovedst  them,  even  as  thou  lovedst  me.  The  substitution  of 
'  learn  to  know  '  here  for  '  believe  *  in  ver.  21  is  remarkable.  The  two 
words  cannot  be  understood  to  signify  the  same  thing,  nor  can  the 
latter,  in  conformity  with  the  style  of  this  Gospel,  express  less  than  the 
former.  In  one  way  or  another  there  must  be  an  advance  of  thought. 
We  see  this  in  the  addition  of  the  clause,  '  lovedst  them  even  as  Thou 
lovedst  Me.'  A  similar  advance  must  be  traced  on  the  point  imme- 
diately before  us.  Chap.  14 :  31  appears  to  solve  the  difficulty.  There 
the  same  word  is  used  as  in  the  present  verse,  and  we  are  thus  in- 
vited to  extend  our  thoughts  beyond  the  number  of  those  who  shall  be 
led  to  faith.  The  whole  world  shall  recognise  what  Jesus  speaks  of: 
even  they  who  do  not  confess  in  faith  shall  confess  in  shame,  that  He 
whom  they  rejected  was  the  loved  of  the  Father,  and  that  He  has 
gathered  His  people  into  the  same  blessed  unity  of  love.  It  is  in  this 
verse  that  the  unity  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  is  peculiarly  dwelt 
upon.  Their  spirituality  is  accompanied  by  its  highest  result  when  it 
is  perfected  into  unity  ;  and  with  this  result  is  connected  the  most 
powerful  impression  which  they  make  upon  the  world.  It  is  there- 
fore a  visible  unity  for  which  Jesus  prays.  His  Church  is  visible  ;  and 
that  idea  of  an  invisible  Church,  in  which  Christians  seek  an  escape 
from  the  sentence  of  condemnation  which  their  divisions  compel  them 
to  pronounce  upon  themselves,  finds  as  little  countenance  in  these 
verses  as  in  any  other  part  of  Scripture. 

Ver.  24.  Father,  -what  ^thou  hast  given  me,  I  desire  that 
^T^here  I  am  they  also  may  be  -with  me,  that  they  may  be- 
hold my  glory  -which  thou  hast  given  me,  because  thou 
lovedst  me  before  the  foundation  of  the  -world.  Having 
prayed  for  the  spirituality  and  unity  of  all  His  disciples,  Jesus  now, 
in  the  closing  petitions  of  His  prayer,  passes  to  the  thought  of  their 
complete  deliverance  from  the  troubles  of  the  world,  and  of  their  en- 
trance with  Him  upon  that  glory  with  which  He  Himself  was  about  to 
be  glorified.  It  is  difficult  to  translate  the  Greek  verb  [pe/.u]  rendered 
*  I  will '  in  the  Authorise^  Version.  '  I  will '  is  too  strong  ;  perhaps 
♦I  desire'    comes   nearest  to  the  original.    The  peculiar  structure  of 

*Less  harsh  than  'that  which' of  the  Eevised  Version.  The  true  reading  is  o 
(the  disciples  are  viewed  first  as  a  unit)  instead  of  oi)s  in  the  A.  V- — P.  S. 


17:  25.]  JOHN  XVII.  361 

25  before   the  foundation  of   the    world.     O   righteous 
Father,  the  world  knew  thee  not,  but  I  knew  thee ; 

the  verse,  in  which  the  clause  *  what  Thou  hast  given  Me '  is  so  remark- 
ably thrown  forward,  arises  from  the  fact  that  believers  are  viewed  not 
so  much  distributively  as  in  the  unity  immediately  present  to  the  Ee- 
deemer's  mind.  It  is  the  perfect  glory  of  Jesus  not  only  as  Son  of 
God  but  also  as  Son  of  man  that  is  spoken  of, — His  glory  shining  forth' 
in  undimmed  brightness  in  the  heavenly  world.  There  is  the  true 
home  of  His  being ;  and  hence  not  '  1  shall  be,'  but '  I  am,'  as  in  chap. 
14:  3.  Again,  however,  we  must  remember  that  this  '  glory'  is  not 
that  of  outward  estate.  It  is  the  spiritual  glory  of  perfect  union  with 
the  Father,  seen  and  shared  in  apart  from  the  shadows  of  earth. 
Hence  the  last  words  of  the  verse  do  not  contain  a  statement  of  the 
ground  upon  which  Jesus  prays  for  His  own,  but  of  the  nature  of  the 
glory  which  they  are  to  behold  when  the  ineffable,  everlasting  love  of 
the  Father  to  the  Son  is  seen  by  them  poured  forth  on  Him  who  has 
taken  the  human  nature  into  perfect  union  with  the  Divine.  The 
full,  the  perfect  love  of  God  will  then  be  seen  to  have  embraced  hu- 
manity in  its  tenderest  outgoings,  and  the  joy  of  the  redeemed  in  the 
vision  and  fruition  of  that  love  will  be  complete  (comp.  on  ver.  22). 

Ver.  25.  Righteous  Father,  both  \_k(u]  the  world  learned 
not  to  know  thee,— but  I  learned  to  know  thee,— and  [/ca/] 
these  learned  to  know^  that  thou  didst  send  me.  Not  in  the 
last  clause  of  ver.  24,  but  now  we  have  the  ground  upon  which  Jesus 
prays  that  the  *  glory'  of  which  He  has  spoken  may  be  conferred  upon 
His  people ;  and  it  connects  itself  not  so  much  with  the  love  as  with 
the  righteousness  of  God.  It  is  just  and  right  that  those  who  have 
been  prepared  for  the  glory  to  be  beheld  should  at  last  obtain  it. 
Hence  '  Pvighteous'  (not  as  in  ver.  11,  '  Holy'  )  'Father.'  For  God  as 
Father  is  not  merely  love,  but  love  resting  on  perfect  rectitude, — is 
One  who  will  see  that  what  befalls  His  creatures  corresponds  to  what 
they  ai'e.  The  word  '  both '  here  perplexes  commentators,  but  it  is  to 
be  explained  by  what  seems  to  be  the  usage  of  this  Gospel  (comp.  15  : 
24),  in  which  propositions  subordinate  to  the  principal  statement  are 
thus  introduced ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  like  a  dark  background, 
they  bring  out  the  main  thought  with  greater  force.  In  the  present 
instance  this  thought  is  contained  in  the  last  clause  of  the  verse,  and 
it  is  made  more  noteworthy  by  (he  fact  stated  in  the  first.  The  inter- 
mediate clause,  again,  '  but  I  learned  to  know  Thee,'  appears  to  be  de- 
signed to  lead  us  up  to  the  main  proposition  following.  It  was  be- 
cause Jesus  knew  the  Father  that  He  had  been  able  to  communicate 
that  knowledge  to  His  people.  Because  they  had  received  this  know- 
ledge, therefore,  it  was  fitting  that  the  love  into  which,  along  with  the 
knowledge,  they  had  entered,  should  bring  to  them  its  full  reward, 
and  should  shine  upon  them  as  it  shone  upon  the  Son  in  whom  they 
had  renounced  the  world  and  the  world's  ways.     It  may,  indeed,  at 


862  JOHN  XVII.  [17:  26. 

26  and  these  knew  that  thou  didst  send  me ;  and  I  made 
known  unto  them  thy  name,  and  will  make  it  known  ; 
that  the  love  wherewith  thou  lovedst  me  may  be  iu 
them,  and  I  in  them. 

first  sight  startle  us  to  find  Jesus  using  such  words  of  Himself  as  that 
He  '  learned  to  know'  the  Father.'  But  (1)  it  has  to  be  borne  in  mind 
that  'learned  to  know'  is  not  in  every  respect  a  pei'fectly  satisfactory 
translation  of  the  original ;  it  only  approaches  much  more  nearly  to 
the  truth  than  'knew.'  The  proper  meaning  would  be  'got  know- 
ledge,' or  '  came  to  know.'  (2)  There  is  nothing  more  startling  in 
the  statement  than  in  that  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (chap.  5 :  8), 
*  Yet  learned  He  obedience  by  the  things  which  He  sufi'ered.'  There, 
indeed,  we  have  another  and  a  separate  word  for  'learned  ;  'but  a  pro- 
cess, a  progress,  is  also  implied  in  the  word  of  the  verse  before  us. 
The  writer  to  the  Hebrews  speaks  of  an  experimental  learning  of  obe- 
dience by  One  who  was  possessed  of  a  truly  human,  as  well  as  of  a 
Divine  nature, — not  the  will  to  obey  becoming  more  perfect,  but  actual 
obedience  being  practically  more  and  more  learned  in  the  varying 
duties  and  trials  of  life.  So  here,  He  who  was  human  as  well  as  Di- 
vine, 'lesbrned'  practicalli/  and  experimentally/,  'to  know'  the  Father; 
and  it  was  because  He  so  learned  that  He  was  able  to  communicate 
that  knowledge — His  own  knowledge — to  His  people.  Knowledge 
such  as  that  spoken  of  can  be  acquired  by  us  in  no  other  way;  and 
we  have  repeatedly  seen,  in  considering  this  prayer,  that  what  Jesus 
bestows  upon  His  disciples  is  first  His  own. 

Ver.  26.  The  thought  of  ver.  25  is  now  more  fully  expressed,  and, 
with  it,  the  result  to  which  the  knowledge  spoken  of  conducts  all  be- 
lievers is  summed  up  in  the  one  word  inclusive  of  every  blessing,  both 
for  time  and  for  eternity, — love.  How  exhaustive  is  the  mode  in 
which  Jesus  teaches  the  'name'  of  God,  the  revelation  of  the  Father 
in  the  Son, — 'I  made  it  known  to  them;  they  know;  I  shall  make  it 
known  to  them  ! '  It  is  the  expression  of  complete  revelation,  similar 
— so  far  as  in  such  a  matter  we  may  speak  of  similarity — to  '  Which 
was,  and  is,  and  is  to  come.'  Therefore  there  naturally  follows  to  all 
who  embrace  this  revelation  a  perfect  entering  into  that  of  which  it 
tells,  into  that  love  which  unites  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  which 
shall  be  in  them,  as  Jesus  Himself  shall  be  in  them,  the  unbroken  rest 
of  'peace'  after  the  toils,  the  eternal  sunshine  of  'joy'  after  the  sor- 
rows of  the  world.  Thus  the  third  section  of  the  prayer  closes,  its 
main  burden  having  been  that  the  whole  Church  of  God,  believers  of 
every  age  and  country,  may  be  so  brought  to  and  kept  in  the  unity  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son  that  the  glory  of  the  Son  in  the  Father  may 
be  theirs.  For  then,  the  conflicts  of  this  world  ended,  they  shall  be 
partakers  of  the  fulness  of  that  love  of  the  Father  which  shall  en- 
compass them  as  it  encompassed  the  Son  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world, — pure,  undimmed,  undisturbed  by  the  presence  of  either  sin 


18:  1.]  •         JOHN  XVIII.  363 

Chapter  18:  1-11. 

The  Betrayal  by  Judas. 

1      When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  words,  he  went  forth 

or  sorrow, — the  Father  in  the  Son  and  the  Son  in  them,  all  in  perfect 
holiness  and  blessedness  consummated  in  One.  Thus,  too,  shall  the 
end  of  all  be  attained,  the  glorifying  of  Him  'of  whom  and  through 
whom  and  to  whom  are  all  things.' 

The  Betrayal  hy  Judas,  vers.  1-11. 
Contents. — With  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  we  enter  upon  a  new  section  of  the 
Gospel,  extending  to  the  close  of  chap.  19.  The  section  contains  the  iinal  assault  of 
the  devil  and  the  world  upon  Jesus.  But  the  struggle  is  of  a  kind  entirely  dififerent 
from  that  contained  in  the  fourth  or  leading  section  of  the  Gtospcl,  chaps.  5-12.  There 
Jesus  contended  with  His  foes.  Here  He  submits  Himself  into  their  hands,  and  they 
appear  to  be  the  conquerors.  Yet  they  aie  not  really  so.  God  Himself  takes  up  the 
cause  of  His  Son,  and  so  bears  witness  to  Him,  that  all  the  sufiferiiig  which  He  en- 
dures is  but  a 'lifting  on  high,'_  and  that  the  death  upon  the  cross  is  victory.  The 
first  paragraph  of  this  section  records  the  betrayal  by  Judas,  and  the  seizure  of  Jesus 
by  the  officers  of  the  chief  priests  aud  Pharisees  accompanied  by  the  Roman  soldiers. 

Ver.  1.     "When  Jesus  had  spoken  these  things,  he  went 
forth  with  his  disciples  over   the  winter-torrent  Kidron. 

The  last  discourse  of  Jesus  to  His  disciples  and  His  intercessory  prayer 
to  His  Father  have  been  spoken  ;  and,  from  the  upper  room  in  which 
this  took  place,  .Jesus  now  '  went  forth  '  to  meet  the  fate  that  had  been 
prepared  for  Him.  More  than  this  seems,  however,  to  be  expressed 
by  the  word  'went  forth'  [ff^^.i^e].  It  is  the  solemn  word  by  which 
the  Evangelist  would  express  the  free  surrender  of  Himself  by  Jesus 
to  His  approaching  fate  (comp.  its  use  in  ver.  4).  It  is  the  continua- 
tion of  His  '  going  forth'  from  the  Father  (chap.  8 :  42).  Descending 
the  steep  slope  then  which  here  leads  from  the  temple-mount  into  the 
valley  bounding  Jerusalem  on  the  east,  Jesus  first  crossed  the  brook 
which  flowed  down  the  valley,  although  in  a  course  at  that  date  much 
nearer  the  temple  walls  than  is  indicated  by  its  present  channel.  Some 
doubt  exists  as  to  the  precise  meaning  of  the  name  given  to  the  brook. 
The  Greek  words  may  signify  either  'The  Kidron'  or  'The  Cedars,' 
there  being  evidence  to  show  that  a  tree  of  dark  foliage,  probably  a 
species  of  cedar,  is  known  in  the  Talmud  by  the  name  Cedritu.  The  first 
signification  seems,  however,  to  be  the  more  probable,  and  the  appa- 
rently plural  termination  of  the  original  may  be  easily  explained :  it 
is  the  Grecising  of  the  Aramaic  name  ending  in  '  on,'  as  ^non, 
Kishon,  Arnon.  The  context  compels  us  to  ask  whether  the  name  is 
used  only  in  its  geographical  force,  or  whether  it  is  associated  in  the 
Evangelist's  mind  with  any  of  those  deeper  ideas  so  often  connected 
by  him  with  names.     The  epithet  affixed  to  it  guides  us  to  a  solution 


864  JOHN  XVIII.  [18  s  2. 

with  his  disciples  over  the  ^  brook  ^Kidron,  where 

was  a  garden,  into  the  which  he  entered,  himself  and 

2  his  disciples.     Now  Judas  also,  which  betrayed  him, 

knew  the  place :  for  Jesus  oft-times  resorted  thither 

1  Or,  ravine.     Gr.  winter-torrent.  2  Or,  of  the  cedars. 

of  this  question.  It  is  the  cnly  occasion  on  which  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  term  '  winter  torrent '  is  applied  to  the  Kidron,  a  term  de- 
rived from  that  word  '  winter '  whicli  we  have  already  found  used  in 
this  Gospel  with  a  reference  deeper  than  to  the  season  of  the  year 
(chap.  10:  22) ;  while  in  the  Old  Testament  it  is  the  symbol  of  tribu- 
lation, trial,  and  judgment  (Ps.  18:  4;  110:  7;  124:  4;  Jer.  47 : 
2).  The  Hebrew  name  Kidron  again  is  derived  from  a  verb  signifying 
to  be  black  or  dirty,  hence  to  mourn  or  be  distressed,  mourners  being 
wont  to  cover  themselves  with  sackcloth  and  ashes  (Ps.  35:  13,  14; 
38:  6;  42:  9;  43:  2).  Putting  these  considerations  together,  we 
cannot  doubt  that  the  Evangelist  sees  in  the  Kidron  the  stream  of 
trouble,  the  'winter-torrent'  of  sorrow  and  affliction.  If  we  may  sup- 
pose that  the  stream  took  its  name  from  the  dark  color  given  to  its 
waters  by  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices  drained  off  into  its  course  from 
the  temple-mount,  the  meaning  involved  in  the  language  before  us 
will  be  still  more  striking.  It  was  over  this  brook  that  David  passed 
in  the  darkest  hour  of  his  history,  that  in  which  he  fled  from  Absalom 
(2  Sam.  15:  23).  When,  accordingly,  we  observe  that  the  quotation 
in  .John  13:  18  is  from  a  Psalm  (Ps.  41),  in  which  the  events  of  that 
sad  day  are  commemorated,  and  that  the  quotation  is  made  in  illus- 
tration of  these  last  scenes  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  it  seems  clear  that  we 
are  invited  to  behold  in  this  crossing  of  the  Iblack  mountain-torrent 
the  crossing  of  the  trae  David,  'the  King  of  Israel'  (12:  13),  in  the 
hour  of  a  still  deeper  anguish  than  that  in  which  His  great  prototype 
had  been  involved. — Where  was  a  garden,  into  which  he  en- 
tered, himself  and  his  disciples.  The  garden  is  that  of  Geth- 
semane ;  not  so  much  a  garden  in  our  sense  of  the  word  as  an  orchard, 
a  garden  with  trees,  and  these,  as  appears  from  the  derivation  of  its 
Hebrew  name,  olives.  Peculiar  attention  is  drawn  to  the  leading 
person  of  the  scene  by  the  addition  of  the  word  '  Himself.' 

Ver.  2.  And  Judas  also,  who  betrayed  him,  knew^  the 
place :  for  Jesus  oft-times  assembled  thither  with  his  disci- 
ples. The  '  oft-times '  must  refer  to  many  previous  visits  to  the  gar- 
den, and  not  to  those  connected  with  the  present  brief  sojourn  in 
Jerusalem.  The  omission  at  this  point  of  all  mention  of  the  'Agony' 
in  the  garden  has  often  occasioned  great  surprise,  and  been  even  used 
as  an  argument  against  the  fidelity  of  the  narrative  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  Yet  it  may  be  observed— (1)  Thift,  while  the  supplementary 
theory  (see  Introduction )  cannot,  as  a  whole,  be  received  in  explana- 
tion of  the  structure  of  our  Gospel,  it  is  quite  natural  that  the  Evan- 


18:  3,  4]  JOHN  XVIII.  365 

3  with  his  disciples.  Judas  then,  having  received  the 
^band  of  soldiers  and  officers  from  the  chief  priests 
and  the  Pharisees,  cometh  thither  with  lanterns  and 

4  torches  and  weapons.     Jesus  therefore,  knowing  all 

1  Or,  cohort. 

gelist  felt  himself  justified  in  the  omission  of  particular  scenes,  which 
were  already  known,  through  his  predecessors,  to  the  Church.  (2) 
That  his  relation  of  the  similar  mental  conflict  and  prayer  in  chap.  12 
— a  rehition  in  which  he  stands  alone — made  it  both  more  possible 
and  more  natural  for  him  to  omit  this  section  here.  (3)  That  his  ob- 
ject being  now  to  bring  prominently  forward  the  calm  majesty  with 
which  Jesus  met  His  final  sufferings,  he  was  led  to  select  those  parts 
of  His  actions  and  words  which  peculiarly  illustrate  this,  and  to  say 
nothing  of  other  parts  by  which  the  picture  might  seem  to  be  dis- 
turbed. Such  a  proceeding  is  consistent  with  the  most  perfect  faith- 
fulness. It  was  not  the  aim  of  any  one  of  the  Evangelists  to  present 
us  with  a  complete  narrative  of  all  the  life  of  Jesus,  or  of  all  the 
aspects  of  His  character  and  work.  Each  drew  rather  out  of  His  in- 
finite fulness  what  was  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  design  which  he 
had  himself  in  view,  or  to  the  range  in  which  he  felt  himself  called 
upon  to  work.  AVhat  we  have  to  ask  is  not  that  each  shall  tell  us  all, 
but  that  the  several  narratives  shall  not  be  inconsistent  with  each 
other.  No  such  inconsistency  can  be  urged  here.  The  Agony  is  the 
illustration  of  the  words  :  '  0  my  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup 
pass  from  me:'  the  narijjttive  before  us  is  the  illustration  of  the  words: 
'Nevertheless,  not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt;'  and  we  know  that 
both  these  sentences  were  uttered  at  the  same  moment  by  the  lips  of 
Jesus  (Matt.  26:  39). 

Ver.  3.  The  circumstances  here  mentioned  are  in  contrast  with 
those  of  ver.  1.  The  general  situation  is  set  before  us  from  its  two 
different  sides:  the  first  consisting  of  (1)  Jesus,  (2)  His  disciples; 
the  second,  of  (1)  Judas,  (2)  the  band  of  soldiers,  etc.  The  mention 
of  'the  band'  has  been  made  an  object  of  ridicule,  as  if  it  could  only 
mean  'half  a  Roman  army.'  The  ridicule  is  groundless,  for — (1) 
Even  if  we  allow  that  the  band  was  of  its  full  strength,  it  was  after  all 
only  the  same  as  the  '  cohort,'  the  tenth  part  of  a  legion.  [The  strength 
of  the  cohorts  varied  from  1,000  to  300  men.]  (2)  The  Romans  in  all 
probability  did  not  think  of  one  man  only  to  be  made  prisoner,  but  of 
the  danger  of  a  popular  tumult.  (3)  In  Acts  23:  23  we  have  a  re- 
markable instance  of  the  number  of  soldiers  used  upon  a  similar  occa- 
sion. The  '  officers'  were  the  servants  of  the  chief  priests  and  Phari- 
sees. The  trees  of  the  garden  made  'lanterns  and  torches'  necessary. 
Although  the  moon  was  near  the  full,  the  Jews  would  imagine  that 
Jesus  would  hide  Himself  in  the  covert  and  so  escape. 

Ver.  4.     It  is  in  the  full  knowledge  of  all  that  was  about  to  happen 


366  JOHN  XVIII.  [IS:  5,6. 

the  things  that  were  coming  upon  him,  went  forth, 
'5  and  saith  unto  them.  Whom  seek  ye?  They  answered 
him,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  I 
am  he.  And  Judas  also,  which  betrayed  him,  was 
6  standing  with  them.  When  therefore  he  said  unto 
them,  I  am  Ae,  they  went  backward,  and  fell  to  the 

that  Jesus  speaks  and  acts.  In  this  knowledge  He  'went  forth,'  not 
merely  out  of  the  garden,  or  out  of  the  shade  of  the  trees  into  the 
moonlight,  or  out  of  the  circle  of  the  disciples,  but  (taking  up  again 
the  'went  forth'  of  ver.  1)  to  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  purpose. 
At  this  instant  the  kiss  of  Judas  mentioned  by  the  first  two  Evangel- 
ists was  given  (Matt.  26:  49;  Mark  14:  45).  — And  saith  unto 
them,  Whom  seek  ye?  The  object  in  all  probability  was  partly 
to  allow  them  to  take  Him,  His  hour  being  now  come;  partly  to  direct 
attention  to  Himself,  so  that  the  disciples  might  escape. 

Ver.  5.  They  ans-wered  him,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  an- 
swer may  perhaps  reveal  the  light  in  which  Judas  had  represented 
Jesus  to  the  Roman  authorities — '  of  Nazareth,'  a  Galilaean,  prone  to 
revolt ;  or  it  may  be  that  the  Evangelist  beholds  in  it  one  of  those 
unconscious  prophecies  of  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  of  which  we  have  so 
many  examples  in  this  Gospel.  In  chap.  1 :  45,  '  Jesus  of  Nazareth ' 
is  one  of  the  three  great  aspects  in  which  we  are  led  to  expect  that 
we  shall  behold  the  Redeemer. — Jesus  saith  unto  them,  I  am  he. 
Before  the  effect  produced  by  the  reply  is  related,  a  parenthetical 
clause  is  introduced. — And  Judas  also,  -who  betrayed  him,  -was 
standing  with  them.  What  is  the  object  of  this  clause?  Not  to 
explain  what  afterwards  happened,  as  if  Judas  had  been  the  first  to 
fall,  and  so  to  pi'oduce  a  confusion  which  made  his  companions  also 
fall ;  not  merely  to  awaken  indirectly  a  deeper  feeling  of  abhorrence 
for  the  traitor  who  thus  dared  to  present  himself  before  his  victim, 
and  that'  too,  as  we  learn  from  the  other  Evangelists,  with  a  kiss. 
The  explanation  is  to  be  found  in  13:  27.  We  have  before  us  Judas 
possessed  by  Satan.  The  powers  of  evil  are  concentrated  in  him;  and 
to  bring  him  thus  prominently  forward  as  sharing  the  fate  of  others 
illustrate  in  the  most  striking  manner  the  victory  of  Jesus  even  in 
this  hour  of  apparent  defeat.  Not  man  only,  but  Satan  shall  fall 
prostrate  before  the  Divine  Son ;  and,  if  the  latter  is  taken  by  His 
enemies,  it  is  not  because  of  their  power",  but  because  He  freely  sur- 
renders Himself  into  their  hands  (10:  18). 

Ver.  6.  It  is  the  Divine  majesty  and  innocence  of  Jesus  that  pro- 
duced the  effect.  Like  the  buyers  and  sellers  in  the  temple,  the  his- 
tory of  Avhose  terror  at  the  presence  of  the  Redeemer  is  vouched  for 
by  the  testimony  of  the  earlier  Gospels  as  much  as  by  that  of  the 
fourth,  they  are  overwhelmed  with  awe,  and  fall  before  Him  (comp. 
on  chap.  2  :  16).    As  soon  as  they  recover,  Jesus  repeats  His  question. 


18:  7-10.]  JOHN  XVIII.  367 

7  ground.    Again  therefore  he  asked  them,  Whom  seek 

8  ye?     And  they  said,  Jesus  of  Nazareth.     Jesus  an- 
s^Yered,  I  told  you  that  I  am  he:  if  therefore  ye  seek 

9  me,  let  these  go  their  way :  that  the  word  might  be 
fulfilled  which  he  spake,  Of  those  whom  thou  hast 

10  given  me  I  lost  not  one.  Simon  Peter  therefore 
having  a  sword  drew  it,  and  struck  the  high  priest's 
^servant,  and  cut  off  his  right  ear.     Now  the  ^ser- 

1  Gr.  hond-servant. 

Ver.  7.  Their  reply  is  in  the  same  terms  as  before.  The  moment 
is  come  when  Jesu^  is  to  deliver  Himself  up,  and  His  sole  concern 
now  is  for  the  safety  of  His  disciples. 

Ver.  8.  And  then  the  Evangelist  tells  us  of  the  illustration  which 
he  beheld  in  this  of  the  meaning  of  certain  words  of  Jesus  uttered  not 
long  before. 

Ver.  9.  The  words  thus  referred  to  are  those  of  17:  12.  There 
they  primarily  apply  to  spiritual  and  eternal  safety ;  here  to  what  is, 
in  the  first  instance  at  least,  temporal  deliverance.  It  is  impossible 
to  imagine  that  the  Evangelist  did  not  understand  this;  but  the  powers 
of  the  world  and  of  evil  are  so  identified  in  his  eyes  that  oppression 
by,  or  deliverance  from,  the  one  is  oppression  by,  or  deliverance 
from,  the  other.  The  temporal  is  the  shadow  of  the  eternal,  and  the 
principles  working  out  upon  man's  stage  here  stretch  into  the  long 
hereafter.  In  addition  to  this,  however,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the 
temporal  deliverance  thus  afforded  was  really  a  means  to  secure  the 
spiritual  safety  of  the  disciples.  Seized  by  the  Roman  guard,  they 
would  in  all  probability  have  denied  their  Master  even  more  faith- 
lessly than  Peter  was  so  soon  to  do. 

Ver.  10.  It  is  possible  that  the  position  of  'therefore'  [ovv']  in  the 
original,  between  '  Simon '  and  *  Peter,'  may  be  designed  to  call  atten- 
tion to  the  import  of  the  apostle's  name.  It  is  not  Simon  only  who 
does  the  act  about  to  be  mentioned,  but  Simon  who  is  'Peter,'  the 
rock,  the  bold  and  determined  one.  The  'servant'  is  not  one  of  the 
♦ofl&cers'  formerly  mentioned,  but  the  high  priest's  own  attendant, 
who  may  have  borne  his  master's  message  to  the  'officers.'  His  name 
was  Malchus  [King],  and  the  mention  of  this  fact,  as  well  as  of  the 
minute  circumstance  that  the  ear  cut  ofi"  was  the  right  ear,  illustrates 
the  personal  knowledge  possessed  by  John  of  what  he  describes.* 
The  earlier  Evangelists,  who  all  mention  the  incident,  do  not  give  the 
servant's  name  (Matt.  26:  51;  Mark  14:  47;  Luke  22:  50).  As 
the  great  object  of  John  in  this  passage  is  to  illustrate  the  perfect 

*  [It  also  unconsciously  foreshadows  the  future  conflict  of  the  Pope  with  the  King 
OT  the  civil  power.   How  often  has  the  papacy  used  carnal  weapons  for  spiritual  ends !] 


368  JOHN  XVIII.  [18:  11-13. 

11  vant's  name  was  Malchus.  Jesus  therefore  said  unto 
Peter,  Put  up  the  sword  into  the  sheath :  the  cup 
which  the  Father  hath  given  me,  shall  I  not  drink  it? 

Chapteb  18:  12-27. 
Jesus  before  Annas  and  Caiaphas, 

12  So  the  ^band  and  the  ^chief  captain  and  the  officers 

13  of  the  Jews  seized  Jesus  and  bound  him,  and  led  him 
to  Annas  first ;  for  he  was  father  in  law  to  Caiaphas, 

1  Or,  Cohort.     2  Or,  military  tribune.    Gr.  chiliarch. 

submission  of  Jesus  to  the  will  of  His  heavenly  Falher  in  the  '  hour ' 
now  come,  nothing  is  said  of  the  healing  of  the  ear.  Luke  alone  tells 
us  of  it  (chap.  22 :  61). 

Jesus  Before  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  vers.  12-27. 

Contents. — We  have  in  this  passage  the  appearance  of  Jesus  before  Annas  and 
Caiaphas,  together  with  the  three  denials  of  the  Apostle  Peter.  The  difficulties  of  the 
passage,  both  in  itself  and  in  its  relation  to  the  earlier  Gospels,  are  unquestionably 
great.  Our  first  aim  must  be  to  understand  the  narrative  as  it  is  here  presented  to 
us,  without  regard  to  any  other  narratives  that  we  possess. 

Ver.  11.  The  aid  of  all  violence  is  disclaimed.  Jesus  speaks  not  of 
*  thy '  sword  but  of  '  the '  sword,  and  thus  shows  that  He  can  Him- 
self resort  to  no  means  of  outward  self-defence.  It  is  His  Father's 
will  that  He  should  suffer  and  die,  and  to  that  will  He  unhesitatingly 
resigns  Himself.  The  particular  form  in  which  the  submission  is  ex- 
pressed reminds  us  of  the  prayer  in  Gethsemane  (Matt.  26  :  39),  and 
the  same  form  of  expression  occurs  at  Matt.  20 :  22.  It  appears  to 
have  been  frequent  on  the  lips  of  the  Son  of  man.  Jesus  is  now  of 
His  own  accord  at  the  disposal  of  his  enemies.  His  words  have  put  a 
stop  to  all  further  steps  for  His  defence. 

Ver.  12.  The  words  addressed  by  Jesus  to  Peter  lend  boldness  to 
His  cowardly  foes.  They  see  that  no  further  resistance  is  to  be  of- 
fered. A  passive  victim  is  before  them  ;  and  they  seize  and  bind 
Him. 

Ver.  13.  The  word  'first'  is  worthy  of  notice.  It  may  be  used 
only  with  reference  to  the  narrative  that  follows  ;  but  it  is  also  possi- 
ble that  we  have  here  another  instance,  similar  to  that  which  we  have 
already  met  in  chap.  8  :  24,  of  the  clear  and  decided  manner  in  which 
the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  corrects  impressions  drawn  from  the 
incomplete  statements  of  the  earlier  Gospels.  In  the  latter  we  read 
only  of  a  hearing  before  Caiaphas  and  the  Sanhedrin,  and  no  mention 
is  made  of  Annas.     That  Jesus  was  taken  before  Annas  '  first  *  is  the 


18:14,15.]  JOHN  XYIII.  369 

14  which  w  as  high  priest  that  year.  Xow  Caiaphas  was 
he  which  gave  counsel  to  the  Jews,  that  it  was  expe- 
pedieut  that  one  man  should  die  for  the  people. 

15  And  Simon  Peter  followed  Jesus,  and  so  did  another 
disciple.  Now  that  disciple  was  known  unto  the  high 
priest,  and  entered  iii  with  Jesus  into  the  court  of  the 

stateipent  of  John,  and  the  very  distinctness  with  which  it  is  made  is 
no  small  evidence  that  we  are  dealing  with  real  history. 

Ver.  14.  The  introduction  of  these  words  obviously  indicates  that 
the  reason  why  Jesus  was  taken  to  Annas  first  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  mere  fact  of  his  relationship  to  Caiaphas,  but  that  it  is  to  be  sought 
also  in  that  character  of  the  latter  which,  it  was  hoped,  would  influ- 
ence the  former.  By  the  reference  made  to  chap.  11 :  50  we  are  re- 
minded that,  in  his  hostility  to  Jesus,  Caiaphas  had  lost  self-control, 
and  had  become  a  mere  instrument  in  the  hands  of  higher  powers 
who  was  urging  him  onward  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  his  guilt. 
Either,  therefore,  the  Jews  thought  that  the  hostility  to  Jesus  raging 
in  his  breast  must  have  already  influenced  his  whole  family  circle 
(comp.  chaps.  6:  71;  13:  26),  or  they  hoped  that  Annas,  if  not  as 
yet  so  deeply  implicated  in  the  plot  as  his  son-in-law,  might  now  be 
persuaded  to  throw  himself  heartily  into  their  plans.  It  was  at  the 
same  time  of  the  utmost  importance  to  secure  the  co-operation  of  An- 
nas, whose  influence,  as  we  learn  from  Josephus,  was  very  great  in 
Jerusalem.  Before  this  powerful  man  then  Jesus  stands,  bound,  sub- 
missive, knowing  the  fate  that  is  before  Him.  Resting  upon  this  as 
its  background,  we  have  now  what  the  Evangelist,  as  we  shall  yet 
more  clearly  see,  is  greatly  concerned  to  describe,  the  faithlessness  of 
Peter. 

Yer.  15.  Although  not  certain,  it  is  upon  the  whole  most  probable 
that  the  '  other  disciple '  thus  unnamed  is  John  himself.  He  and 
Peter  may  have  fled  at  first  with  the  others;  but,  if  so,  they  had  im- 
mediately returned.  The  name  given  to  Simon  is  again  important. 
AVe  have  already  seen  at  ver.  9  the  manner  in  which  the  Evangelist 
brings  out  the  force  of  '  Peter.'  Of  that  force  we  must  not  here  lose 
sight.  Simon  is  still  'the  rock,'  notwithstanding  what  he  is  about  to 
do.  It  is  the  very  fact  indeed  that  he  is  '  Peter  '  which  shows  how 
terrible  is  the  moment,  and  how  deep  the  stab  inflicted  upon  Jesus. 
But  so  far  is  .John  from  wishing  to  depreciate  his  fellow-apostle  that 
he  regards  him,  even  in  the  midst  of  his  greatest  defection,  as  the  lion 
of  the  apostolic  band,  the  man  to  whom  .Jesus  had  given  the  name 
Peter  in  order  to  indicate  his  boldness,  the  man  with  whom  he  had 
himself  stood  side  by  side,  in  years  at  the  time  he  wrote  long  gone  by, 
fronting  undismayed  the  very  judges  who  made  him  tremble  now.  At 
the  door  opening  into  the  high  priest's  'court'  Peter  is  stopped.  It 
is  indeed  only  for  a  few  moments,  but  they  are  full  of  weight  for  the 
24 


370  JOHN  XVIII.  [18:  16-18. 

16  high  priest ;  but  Peter  was  standing  at  the  door  with- 
out. So  the  other  discij^le,  which  was  known  unto 
the  high  priest,  went  out  and  spake   unto  her  that 

17  kept  the  door,  and  brought  in  Peter.  The  maid 
therefore  that  kept  the  door  saith  unto  Peter,  Art 
thou  also  one  of  this  man's  disciples  ?     He  saith,  I 

18  am  not.  Now  the  ^servants  and  the  officers  were  stand- 
ing there,  having  made  ^a  fire  of  coals;  for  it  was 
cold ;  and  they  were  warming  themselves  :  and  Peter 
also  was  with  them,  standing  and  warming  himself. 

1  Gr.  bondservants.  2  Qr.  afire  of  charcoal. 

understanding  of  the  narrative.  During  them  Jesus  passes  through. 
The  two  apostles  do  not  pass  through  at  the  same  instant :  John  alone 
finds  immediate  admittance;  and  we  are  justified  in  saying  that,  be- 
fore Peter  has  well  begun  his  parley  at  the  door,  Jesus  will  be  out  of 
sight.  Had  it  not  been  for  an,  accidental  circumstance  the  two  apos- 
tles would  not  have  been  admitted  at  all.  This  circumstance  is  next 
related. — And  that  disciple  was  known  unto  the  high  priest, 
and  he  went  in  with  Jesus  into  the  court  of  the  high  priest. 
Reserving  until  we  come  to  the  close  of  ver,  27  any  inquiry  into  the 
question  whether  the  'high  priest'  here  spoken  of  was  Annas  or 
Caiaphas,  we  remark  only  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  ask  by  what  means 
John  was  known  to  him.  There  is  no  improbability  in  the  circum- 
stance, especially  when  we  remember  that  the  relatives  of  the  Apos- 
tle were  persons  in  easy  circumstances  (Mark  1  :  20).  Thus  known, 
he  finds  no  difficulty  in  obtaining  entrance  into  the  court. 

Ver.  16.  Peter  is  stopped  at  the  door;  and,  while  he  stands  there, 
Jesus  is  lost  to  his  view.  The  circumstance  thus  related  is  in  the 
highest  degree  natural,  and  it  is  related  in  the  most  simple  manner. 

Ver.  17.  The  maid  knew  that  John  was  one  of  the  disciples  of 
Jesus,  and  the  interest  taken  by  him  in  Peter  leads  her  to  suppose 
that  the  latter  must  also  be  one  of  them.  She  asks  the  question,  and 
the  first  denial  takes  place.  As  Peter  enters  the  court,  he  says,  -I  am 
not.' 

Ver.  18.  These  'servants'  and  'officers,'  it  must  be  remembered, 
are  those  who  had  so  recently  laid  hold  of  Jesus,  and  who  were  the 
instruments  of  His  sufferings.  They  had  made  a  fire  of  charcoal,  a 
circumstance  in  itself  exceedingly  natural  in  the  cold  of  that  spring 
night :  and  at  it  they  stood  and  warmed  themselves.  '  Peter '  also 
'with  them'  was  standing  and  warming  himself.  Such  seems  at  first 
to  be  the  sole  meaning  of  the  words  :  but  the  clause  '  for  it  was  cold,' 
reminding  us  of  chap.  10:  22  and  chap.  13:  30,  forces  on  us  the  im- 
pression that  the  Evangelist  has  something  more  in  view  than  the 


18 :  19-22.]  JOHN  XYIII.  371 

19  The  high  priest  therefore  asked  Jesus  of  his  dis- 

20  ciples,  and  of  his  teaching.  Jesus  answered  him,  I 
have  spoken  openly  to  the  world  ;  I  ever  taught  in 
^synagogues,  and  in  the  temple,  where  all  the  Jews 

21  come  together  ;  and  in  secret  spake  I  nothing.  Why 
askest  thou  me  ?  ask  them  that  have  heard  me,  what 
I  spake  unto  them :  behold,  these  know  the  things 

22  which  I  said.     And  when  he  had  said  this,  one  of  the 

1  Gr.  synagogue. 

simple  fact  apparent  to  the  first  glance  at  the  words  employed  by  him. 
The  fact  is  more  than  historical.  To  the  symbolic  eye  of  John  it  has  a 
deeper  meaning.  In  this  night  of  cold  he  sees  Peter  associating  him- 
self with  the  enemies  of  Jesus,  perhaps  consulting  his  own  comfort 
while  his  Master  suffers,  at  all  events  putting  himself  in  a  position 
where  the  faithlessness  that  had  already  led  to  his  first  denial  must 
gain  strength ;  and  he  thus  prepares  us  to  expect  that  the  sin  of  which 
he  has  been  already  guilty  may,  probably  will,  be  followed  by  a  still 
greater  fall.  Whether  this  idea  is  brought  out  also  by  the  '  fire  of 
charcoal'  is  more  difficult  to  say.  It  seems  not  unlikely  that  it  is, 
for  the  word  is  not  used  by  the  other  Evangelists  ;  '  coals  of  charcoal ' 
are  in  the  Old  Testament  one  of  the  symbols  of  Divine  judgment  (Ps. 
18:  13;  128:  4;  140:  10);  and  this  symbolic  meaning  may  be  ex- 
tended to  chap.  21 :  9,  the  only  other  passage  of  the  New  Testament 
where  we  find  the  word.  Apart  from  this,  however,  there  is  enough 
to  show  that  ver.  18  is  not  simply  historical.  The  peculiar  spirit  of 
the  Evangelist  appears  in  it,  and  we  have  the  less  occasion  for  sur- 
prise if  we  meet  in  the  narrative  other  traces  of  the  same  spirit. 

Ver.  19.  The  object  of  the  narrative  is  to  direct  our  attention 
mainly  to  Jesus.  The  Evangelist  would  place  Him  before  us  in  the 
dignity  and  calmness  with  which  He  bore  His  sufferings,  as  well  as  in 
the  consciousness  of  that  perfect  innocence  through  which  He  was 
able  to  confront,  and  really  to  defeat.  His  enemies  in  what  seemed  the 
very  height  of  their  power.  To  this, .  accordingly,  he  immediately 
proceeds. 

Vers.  20,  21.  The  answer  is  dignified,  self-possessed  and  calm. 
Jesus  simply  makes  His  appeal  to  the  frank  openness  of  His  whole 
past  teaching.  He  is  willing  to  cast  Himself  even  on  the  testimony  of 
His  enemies.  They  know  what  He  .has  spoken,  and  He  has  no  need 
to  fear  if  they  tell  the  truth.  At  the  same  time  the  words  are  intended 
to  rebuke  the  hypocrisy  of  those  who  pretended  a  wish  to  know  more 
about  His  teachings,  when  in  truth  they  sought  only  a  pretext  for  ac- 
cusation. The  mention  of  '  the  world '  and  of  '  all '  the  Jews  lend 
great  force  to  what  is  said. 

Ver.  22.     When  we  remember  that  the  *  court '  in  which  the  exami- 


872  JOHN  XVIII.  [18 :  23-25. 

officers  standing  by  struck  Jesus  Vith  his  hand,  say- 
ing, Answerest  thou  the  high  priest  so  ?     Jesus  an- 

23  swered  him,  If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  witness  of 

24  the  evil :  but  if  well,  why  smitest  thou  me  ?  An- 
nas therefore  sent  him  bound  unto  Caiaphas  the  high 
priest. 

25  Now  Simon  Peter  was  standing  and  warming  him- 
self.    They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Art  thou  also 

1  Or,  with  a  rod. 

nation  was  going  on  could  not  be  large,  it  seems  probable  that  this 
*  officer '  said  to  have  been  *  standing  by '  was  one  of  those  referred  to 
in  ver.  18  as  the  officers  who  '  stood'  by  the  fire.  If  so,  the  circum- 
stance is  important,  as  showing  that  Peter  must  have  been  in  the  im- 
mediate vicinity  of  Jesus  at  the  moment  when  the  blow  was  given. 
Under  no  circumstances  indeed  can  he  have  been  far  off;  and  the  fact 
is  to  be  kept  in  view,  for  it  constitutes  one  of  the  points  of  distinction 
between  his  first  and  his  subsequent  denials.  The  blow  was  a  rude, 
perhaps  a  cruel  one.  It  was  alno  wholly  unprovoked,  for  in  the  an- 
swer of  Jesus  there  had  been  no  want  of  courtesy.  Yet  it  failed  to 
disturb  in  the  least  degree  the  equanimity  of  the  Sufferer,  or  to  pro- 
voke Him  out  of  His  spirit  of  submission  to  His  Heavenly  Father's 
will. 

Ver.  23.  Bear  ■witness  here  is  certainly  not  equivalent  to  prove 
by  bearing  testimony  in  a  regular  manner,  an  injunction  which  would 
have  been  out  of  place.  It  is  simply  the  solemn  word  demanded  by 
the  circumstances  of  the  moment.  Jesus  is  where  He  is  by  Divine 
appointment ;  and  everything  relating  to  His  present  state  bears  im- 
press of  the  solemnity  of  His  position. — It  is  precisely  in  John's  man- 
ner that  no  answer  to  these  words  is  recorded.  The  picture  of  sub- 
missicn  is  complete.  Mere  historical  detail,  such  as  might  satisfy 
curiosity,  is  of  subordinate  interest  to  the  Evangelist.  The  fact,  how- 
ever, that  this  is  the  case  is  worthy  of  notice.  It  helps  to  throw  light 
upon  that  structure  of  the  narrative  as  a  whole  which  we  have  not 
yet  examined. 

Ver,  24.  The  difficulty  connected  with  these  words  will  be  best 
explained  when  we  have  completed  the  consideration  of  the  three  fol- 
lowing verses.  In  the  original,  Annas  is  so  introduced  to  our  notice 
as  to  lead  us  directly  back  to  the  'Anna-s'  of  ver.  13, 

Ver.  25.  And  Simon  Peter  was  standing  and  -warming 
himself.  As  far  as  mere  history  is  concerned,  these  words  are  un- 
necessary, comp.  ver.  18 ;  but  they  are  designed  to  elucidate  the  idea 
of  the  scene  about  to  be  described.  Peter  is  no  longer  only  near  the 
door :  he  is  within  the  court.  He  is  no  longer  only  in  the  cold  ;  he  is 
warming  himself  at  the  charcoal  fire.  He  is  no  longer  only  with 
John  ;  he  is  along  with  the  servants  and  oflScers  of  the  Jews.     Every- 


18:20,27.]  JOHN  XVIII.  373 

one  of  his  disciples  ?     He  denied,  and  said,  I  am  not. 

26  One  of  the  ^  servants  of  the  high  priest,  being  a  kins- 
man of  him  whose  ear  Peter  cut  off,  saith.  Did  not  I 

27  see  thee  in  the  garden  with  him?     Peter  therefore  de- 
nied again :  and  straightway  the  cock  crew. 

1  Gr.  bondservants. 

thing  corresponds  to  that  more  determined,  that  double  denial  of  our 
Lord  now  to  be  described. — They  said  therefore  unto  him,  Art 
thou  also  one  of  his  disciples  ?  He  denied  and  said,  I  am 
not.  We  are  not  told  who  asked  the  question.  In  the  narratives  of 
the  earlier  Evangelists  we  find  that,  according  to  Matt.  26:  71,  this 
denial  was  drawn  forth  by  'another  maid;'  according  to  Mark  14:  69 
by  'the  maid,'  probably  the  maid  of  the  porch;  according  to  Luke 
22:  58,  by  'another  man.'  In  John  we  have  the  solution  of  these 
apparent  discrepancies.  It  was  not  one  person  only  that  thus  spoke 
to  Peter.  The  remark  was  made  by  many — in  the  excitement  of  the 
moment  by  many  at  the  same  time  ;  and  Peter  (as  is  even  implied  in 
Mark  14:  70)  repeated  his  answer  to  one  after  another.  The  'they' 
thus  suggests  what  was  the  true  course  of  events.  The  second  denial, 
as  in  Matt.  26 :  72,  was  in  boldness  and  recklessness  an  advance  upou 
the  first.  At  ver.  17  only  the  word  'saith'  is  used  ;  now  'denied  and 
said.' 

Ver.  26.  It  is  natural  to  ask  why  mention  is  made  of  the  relation- 
ship between  the  servant  who  asks  this  question  and  the  other  servant 
who  had  suffered  through  Peter  s  hasty  ze?i.  The  probable  answer 
is,  that  the  circumstance  aids  in  developing  the  idea  which  the  Evan- 
gelist has  in  view.  It  heightens  the  effect.  This  man  would  ask  his 
question  with  far  more  bitterness  than  the  others  (comp.  the  expres- 
sion of  Luke  when  he  says  in  chap.  22  :  59 :  '  he  confidently  afl&rmed ' ). 
He  had  been  personally  aggrieved  by  the  injury  inflicted  on  his  kins- 
man. His  question  too  is  much  more  pointed — not  whether  Peter  is 
one  of  the  disciples,  but  whether  his  own  eyes  had  not  seen  him  but 
a  little  before  upon  a  spot  which  he  could  name. 

Ver.  27.  Again  therefore  Peter  denied.  Nothing  is  said  of 
the  adjui'ations  mentioned  by  the  first  two  Evangelists. — And  im- 
mediately the  cock  crew.  All  else  recorded  in  the  earlier  Gos- 
pels is  omitted.  —We  are  now  in  a  position  to  look  back  upon  the 
whole  narrative  from  ver.  12  to  the  present  point,  with  the  view  of 
endeavoring  to  meet  the  difficulties  presented  when  we  compare  it 
with  the  narratives  of  the  first  three  Evangelists.  As  to  those  con- 
nected with  the  three  denials  of  Peter,  it  seems  unnecessary  to  add 
much  to  what  has  been  already  said  on  ver.  25.  We  may  only  notice 
that  a  use  of  the  pronoun  '  they '  exactly  similar  to  its  use  in  that 
verse  meets  us  in  Matt.  26  :  73  and  Mark  14 :  70,  when  compared 
with  Luke  22:  59  and  John  18:  26.  In  these  passages  the  third  de- 
nial is  in  question,  and  in  the  first  two  Evangelists  it  is  drawn  forth 


374  JOHN  XVIII.  [18:  27. 

by  '  them  that  stood  by/  in  the  last  two  by  a  single  person.  The  so- 
lution depends  upon  the  same  principle  as  that  of  which  we  have 
spoken  with  regard  to  the  second  denial  in  John.  Not  one  only,  but 
many  of  the  eager  and  excited  spectators  would  ask  the  question,  and 
of  that  number  Luke  and  John  might  easily  single  out  the  person 
peculiarly  prominent.  All  three  denials  took  place  in  the  court  of 
the  high  priest's  house,  and  within  the  range  of  both  the  light  and 
the  heat  of  the  fire  that  had  been  kindled  there :  the  tirst,  immediately 
after  Peter  had  been  bi'ought  into  the  court;  the  second,  when  he  had 
retired  into  the  opening  of  the  poich,  but  was  still  within  hearing  of 
remarks  made  around  the  fire  (Matt.  26:  71);*  the  third,  when  he 
was  again  more  fully  within  the  court. — From  the  denials  of  Peter  we 
pass  to  the  nature  of  the  trial  of  Jesus  here  recorded  and  to  the  judge 
before  whom  it  took  place.  Is  the  trial  described  by  John  the  same 
as  that  of  which  an  account  is  given  us  by  Matthew  (ch.  20  :  57-08)  ? 
or  is  it  a  preliminary  examination,  having  the  nature  of  a  precogni- 
tion, and  instituted  for  the  purpose  of  laying  a  foundation  for  the 
more  formal  trial  before  the  Sanhedrin?  The  impression  produced 
by  the  narrative  is  that  it  was  the  latter ;  that  it  is  a  record  of  the 
proceedings  taken  before  Annas  'first,'  and  that  at  it  therefore  Annas 
presided.  Yet  two  difficulties  stand  in  the  way  of  this  interpretation : 
the  first,  that  Caiaphas,  not  Annas,  appears  to  be  the  high  priest  so 
repeatedly  mentioned  in  John  18:  15-22;  the  second,  that  in  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  the  first  denial  of  Peter  is  related  after  the  public  trial 
is  finished,  while  here,  on  the  supposition  of  which  we  speak,  it  will 
be  distinctly  stated  to  have  taken  place  before  that  trial  began.  As  to 
the  first  of  these,  it  is  at  least  possible  that  Annas  may  be  'the  high 
priest'  of  vers.  15-22.  Though  he  had  been  deposed  by  the  Roman 
authorities,  the  office  was,  according  to  the  provision  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, for  life;  and  a  Jew  like  John  might  well  speak  of  him  as  still 
the  rightful  possessor  of  the  title  (comp.  Luke  3:  2).  But  if  this  so- 
lution is  not  very  probable,  there  is  another  which  fairly  meets  the 
case.  Annas  and  Caiaphas  may  have  occupied  apartments  in  the  same 
house  surrounding  the  '  court'  of  our  narrative.  The  structure  of  higher- 
class  houses  in  Palestine,  the  relationship  of  the  persons  themselves 
and  the  customs  of  the  East,  lead  not  unnaturally  to  such  a  view ; 
and  it  was  very  early  entertained.  But  if  so,  though  Jesus  was  really 
taken  to  Annas,  Caiaphas  would  in  all  probability  be  present  at  the 
examination;  and,  thus  present,  his  more  youthful  years  and  the  pas- 

*  The  first  impression  produced  by  this  verse  is  that  the  word  '  there '  in  it  relates 
to  the  interior  of  the  porch.  But  it  is  absolutely  impossible  to  think  that  many  would 
be  standing  in  such  a  place.  They  may  have  been  around  it,  even  within  it,  where  it 
opened  into  the  '  court ;'  in  its  deeper  recesses  they  certainly  would  not  be.  In  this 
point  of  view,  great  interest  and  importance  attach  to  an  alternative  reading  of  Matt. 
26 :  71,  which  is  verj'  probably  the  true  reading— not  '  and  saith  unto  them  that  were 
there,  This  fellow  was  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth,'  but  'and  saith  unto  them,  There  this 
fellow  also  was  with  Jesus  of  Nazareth.' 


18:  27.]  JOHN  XVIII.  375 

sionateness  of  his  rage  against  Jesus  would  lead  him  to  act  the  promi- 
nent part  which  is  assigned  to  him.  The  second  difficulty  is  still  more 
easily  met.  We  have  to  bear  in  mind  the  peculiar  structure  of  the 
first  Gospel,  and  the  tendency  of  its  author  to  group  his  particulars 
according  to  their  substance,  rather  than  in  strict  chronological  ar- 
rangement. Such  may  well  be  his  object  in  chap.  26:  69-75,  where 
the  three  denials  are  obviously  brought  into  the  closest  proximity  to 
each  other.  We  seem  even  to  be  furnished  with  a  hint  to  this  effect 
by  the  words  of  ver.  69  :  '  Now  Peter  sat  without  in  the  porch.'  It  is 
not  at  all  likely  that,  at  the  close  of  the  trial,  amidst  the  confusion 
and  bustle  of  the  moment,  and  when  the  enemies  of  Jesus  were  hur- 
rying Him  away,  after  having  so  far  accomplished  their  object,  a  per- 
son of  Peter's  impetuous  disposition  would  continue  sitting  in  the 
porch.  There  is,  indeed,  another  difficulty  connected  with  ver.  24  of 
our  passage,  where,  after  Caiaphas  has  taken  the  part  of  which  we 
have  spoken,  Annas  is  said  to  have  'sent'  Jesus  to  him.  This  diffi- 
culty cannot  be  overcome  by  the  rendering  of  the  Authorized  Version : 
'■had  sent;'  and  the  particle  connecting  the  verse  with  those  preceding 
it  is  undoubtedly  not  'now,'  but  'therefore.'  Yet  we  may  well  sup- 
pose that  the  reference  is  to  the  public  trial,  which  was  yet  to  take 
place  before  Caiaphas  as  high  priest  by  law :  in  this  capacity,  and  not 
in  the  more  private  one  in  which  he  had  been  acting  at  the  investiga- 
tion before  Annas,  he  is  now  to  have  Jesus  sent  to  him.  If  to  these 
considerations  we  add  the  fact  that  we  are  ignorant  of  many  of  those 
details  which  would  throw  light  upon  the  customs  of  the  time,  we 
shall,  while  not  denying  that  some  difficulty  still  remains,  be  able  to 
rest  with  perfect  confidence  in  the  general  faithfulness  of  the  narra- 
tive.— One  word  more  may  be  permitted  in  regard  to  the  mode  in 
which  the  three  denials  of  Peter  are  presented  to  us  by  John.  It  will 
be  observed  that  they  are  given  in  two  groups,  and  that  between  the 
two  there  is  advance ;  the  effect  is  heightened  as  we  proceed.  Thus, 
in  the  first  group  there  is  only  one  denial ;  in  the  second  there  are 
two.  The  first  takes  place  at  a  moment  when  Jesus  has  passed  out  of 
Peter's  sight;  the  second  and  third,  at  a  moment  when  Jesus  is  under 
Peter's  eye — bound,  yet  patient  and  submissive.  The  first  is  made 
when  Peter  is  as  yet  with  John ;  the  second  and  third,  when  he  has 
associated  himself  with  the  enemies  of  Jesus.  At  the  moment  of  the 
first  Peter  is  in  the  '  cold ;'  at  that  of  the  second  and  third,  he  has 
seated  himself  at  the  fire  of  charcoal.  The  first  is  expressed  by — 
*  Peter  saith ;'  the  second  and  third  are  much  more  emphatic,  '  he  de- 
nied and  said,'  '  he  denied  again.'  So  many  particulars  warrant  the 
inference  that  here,  as  in  various  other  passages  of  his  Gospel,  John 
sees  the  historical  facts  with  which  he  deals  presenting  themselves  in 
two  pictures,  both  unfolding  the  same  truth,  but  in  a  climactic  form. 


876  JOHN  XVIII.  [17:  28. 

Chapter  18:  28-40. 

Jesus  before  Pilate, 

28      They  led  Jesus  therefore  from  Caiaphas  into  the 

Jesus  before  Pilate^  vers.  28-40. 

Contents. — From  the  examination  before  Caiaphas  we  are  taken  to  the  trial  before 
Pilate.  The  scene  is  in  every  respect  one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  the  Gospel,  alike 
in  its  selection  of  incidents  and  vividness  of  descriptiuu,  and  in  that  tragic  under- 
current of  thought  by  which  it  reveals  the  humiliation,  the  condemnation,  and  the 
shame  of  the  guilty  Jews,  while  they  clamor  for  judgment  upon  One  whom  a  heathen 
would  have  set  free.  Again  and  again,  in  rejecting  their  true  King,  they  confess  the 
degradation  to  which  they  have  reduced  themselves,  until  at  last  that  degradation 
culminates  in  words  implying  the  forfeiture  of  all  that  had  distinguished  Judaism, 
all  that  of  which  it  had  been  most  proud.  The  passage  contains  one  of  those  double 
pictures  which  mark  the  style  of  John  and  the  incidents  of  the  two  pictures  are  so 
arranged  that  the  second  exhibits  an  advance  upon  the  first. 

Ver.  28.  The  '  palace '  here  spoken  of  was  in  all  probability  a  part 
of  the  castle  of  Antonia  at  the  north-west  corner  of  the  temple-mount. 
Pilate  had  come  for  the  time  from  CsBsarea  to  reside  here,  in  order 
more  effectually  to  repress  the  disturbances  apt  to  arise  at  the  season 
of  the  Passover.  The  hour,  immediately  after  'cock-crowing,'  was 
certainly  not  later  tha.n  3  or  3.30  a.  m.  It  need  excite  no  surprise 
that  the  Jews  should  lead  Jesus  to  Pilate  at  such  an  hour.  During 
the  whole  night  of  the  Passover  the  city  would  be  in  commotion  ;  on 
this  night  in  particular  they  were  prepared  for  disturbance  (comp.  on 
chap.  18 :  3) ;  and  the  governor  would  certainly  be  ready  to  receive 
any  delinquent.  It  is  worthy  of  notice,  however,  that  Pilate  does  not 
take  his  formal  seat  on  the  tribunal  until  6  a.m.  (chap.  19:  14),  the 
hour  befoi'e  which,  according  to  Roman  law,  no  judge  was  entitled  to 
pronounce  judgment.— -And  they  themselves  "went  not  into 
the  palace,  that  they  might  not  be  defiled,  but  might  eat 
the  passover.  In  a  commentary  such  as  the  present,  the  difficulty 
occasioned  by  these  words  must  be  very  briefly  stated.  Looked  at  in 
their  present  context,  the  words  'that  they  might  eat  the  Passover' 
can  refer  to  nothing  but  the  Paschal  meal  properly  so  called,  and  not 
to  any  of  the  other  meals  of  the  Paschal  season.  Thus,  however,  the 
expression  seems  to  indicate  ;  that  the  Paschal  Supper  had  not  been 
celebrated  on  the  evening  previous  to  the  events  now  passing,  but 
that  it  was  to  be  celebrated  on  the  evening  of  the  day  now  begun. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  earlier  Evangelists  distinctly  state  that  it  was 
from  the  Paschal  Supper  that  Jesus  and  His  disciples  rose  when  they 
went  into  the  garden,  and  when  the  betrayal  took  place.  These  Evan- 
gelists and  John  thus  appear  to  be  in  direct  contradiction  to  one  an- 
other. We  have  to  do  with  the  question  now  only  ia  so  fir  as  it  con- 
cerns the  verse  before  us.     That  verse  cannot  mean  that  the  Jews 


18:28.]  JOHN  XVIII. 


^  palace :  and  it  was  early ;  and  they  themselves  en- 
tered not  into  the  palace,  that  they  might  not  be  de- 

l  Gr.  Prsetorlum. 

referred  to  in  it  were  looking  forward  to  the  celebration  of  the  Pass- 
over on  the  evening  of  the  day  about  to  begin,  or  just  begun.  The 
hour  was  probably  3  or  3.30  a,  m.  The  Passover  was  a  night-festival. 
It  certainly  would  not  begin  till  the  evening  was  well  advanced;  that 
is,  not  less  than  eighteen  hours  had  to  pass  from  the  point  at  which 
we  are  now  standing  till  we  reach  it.  These  hours  include  a  sunset, 
the  time  at  which  uncleanness  of  a  much  more  serious  kind  than  that 
produced  by  entering  into  the  house  of  a  Gentile  was  removed  by  the 
simple  process  of  washing  with  water.  The  Jews  could  have  no  fear 
that  by  entering  into  Pilate's  hall  they  would  unfit  themselves  for  eat- 
ing a  Paschal  meal  to  be  celebrated  the  following  evening.  But  if  it 
be  so,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  words?  The  answer  is, — they  were 
afraid  that  they  might  lose  their  Passover.  The  meal  was  not  yet 
ended  in  the  city.  Jerusalem  was  crowded  at  the  time  :  a  very  large 
number  of  lambs  had  to  be  killed  and  roasted  after  3  p.  m.  ;  and  it 
must  have  been  impossible  to  close  the  feast  in  every  Jewish  family  by 
midnight.  The  celebration  must  have  gone  on  the  whole  night  through. 
Now  the  persons  here  referred  to  had  been  interrupted  in  their  feast. 
They  may  have  sat  down  to  the  supper;  but,  before  they  had  finished, 
Judas  had  been  with  them,  his  offer  made,  his  plans  accepted.  They 
had  hastily  seized  the  opportunity,  and  had  rushed  out  to  the  garden, 
resolving  to  return  and  finish  their  meal  before  daybreak.  They  had 
failed  in  this  :  yet  they  will  take  one  step  more.  They  will  try  to  ob- 
tain from  the  Roman  governor  the  pronouncing  of  a  final  sentence 
upon  their  victim.  If,  however,  this  is  to  be  done,  it  must  be  done 
quickly.  We  shall  see  immediately  the  marks  of  haste  upon  the  nar- 
rative. From  their  haste  came  most  naturally  their  scrupulousness  at 
the  thought  of  entering  Pilate's  house.  To  think  that  they  would 
have  been  thus  scrupulous  had  there  been  from  eighteen  to  twenty- 
four  hours  to  pass  before  they  should  be  called  to  eat  the  Passover,  is 
at  variance  with  every  feeling  of  human  nature,  as  well  as  with  the 
prescriptions  of  the  ceremonial  law.  They  were  scrupulous  because 
they  desired  to  eat  ivithoid  an  hour's  delay.  They  had  lost  time  al- 
ready ;  the  night  was  flying  fast ;  the  morning  light  would  soon  ap- 
pear;  it  would  be  too  late  then:  no  interruption  that  can  be  escaped 
must  be  allowed :  they  would  not  go  into  the  palace  '  that  they  might 
not  be  defiled,  but  might  eat  the  Passover.'  It  is  here  that  we  see  the 
marks  of  rapid  action  spoken  of  above:  the  effect  of  the  true  reading 
and  the  true  rendering  being  to  bring  the  two  verbs  *be  defiled'  and 
'eat'  into  close  connection  with  each  other.  The  Jews  were  afraid  of 
defilement  at  that  moment,  because  at  that  moment  they  were  desi- 
rous to  complete  their  feast.  It  may  perhaps  be  said  in  reply  that,  if 
this  was  their  intention,  it  failed.  Morning  broke  before  they  left 
Pilate,  and  they  lost  the  opportunity  of  eating.     Precisely  so.     It  is 


378  JOHN  XVIII.  [18 :  29-32. 


29  filed,  but  might  eat  the  passover.  Pilate  therefore 
went  out  unto  them,  and  saith,  What  accusation  bring 

30  ye  against  this  man  ?  They  answered  and  said  unto 
him,  If  this  man  were  not  an  evil-doer,  we  should  not 

31  have  delivered  him  unto  thee.  Pilate  therefore  said 
unto  them.  Take  him  yourselves,  and  judge  him  ac- 
cording to  your  law.     The  Jews  said  unto  him,  It  is 

32  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death :  that  the 

probable  one  of  the  very  tliouglits  that  John  wishes  lis  to  carry  away 
from  his  story  as  he  tells  it.  Instead  of  welcoming  the  true  Paschal 
Lamb,  these  Jews  rejected  Him.  What  thought  more  in  the  manner 
of  our  Evangelist  than  to  let  us  see  that,  seeking  to  retain  the  shadow, 
and  sacrificing  the  substance  for  its  sake,  they  lost  not  only  the  sub- 
stance but  the  shadow  too  (comp.  11:  48)? 

Ver.  29.  Pilate  was  Procurator  of  Judjea  under  the  Roman  gov- 
ernment; and  his  character,  as  described  by  writers  of  the  time,  is 
that  of  a  skeptical,  cold,  and  cruel  man,  arbitrary  in  his  acts,  and 
cherishing  no  feelings  but  those  of  contempt  for  the  religion  of  Israel. 
He  was,  however,  a  Roman  judge,  and  until  his  passions  were  excited 
there  is  no  cause  to  think  that  he  would  not  show  the  usual  Roman 
respect  for  the  law.  His  first  question,  accordingly,  was  that  of  one 
who  would  try  the  prisoner  before  him  with  all  fairness. 

Ver.  30.  There  is  pride  in  the  reply,  a  lofty  sense  of  their  own  im- 
portance and  dignity, — that  importance  and  dignity  which  they  are  so 
soon  to  sacrifice.  The  person  whom  we  bring  before  thee  is  a  male- 
factor ;  is  it  not  enough  that  we  say  so,  and  that  we  deliver  him  up  to 
thee? 

Ver.  31.  Pilate  has  already  seen  enough  to  satisfy  him  that  no  of- 
fence against  civil  order,  calling  for  his  interposition,  has  been  com- 
mitted. He  will  have  nothing  to  do  with  merely  religious  squabbles, 
and  he  remits  the  whole  matter  to  the  Jews  themselves.  Thus  the 
Jews  are  compelled  to  declare  their  purpose,  and  their  self-confessed 
humiliation  begins. — The  Jews  said  unto  him,  It  is  not  law- 
ful for  us  to  put  any  man  to  death.  Shortly  before  this  time 
the  .Jews  had  lost  the  power  of  putting  criminals  to  death.  But  the 
point  now  is,  that  they  have  to  confess  it.  In  their  answer  the  Evan- 
gelist seems  to  see  a  mockery  of  their  high  pretensions.  The  bitter 
irony  of  circumstances  forces  from  them  an  acknowledgment  of  their 
sharae.  But,  while  they  are  thus  degraded,  the  Divine  purpose  pro- 
ceeds calmly  to  its  accomplishment. 

Ver.  32.  The  'word'  referred  to  is  3:  14,  or  still  more  probably 
12  :  32.  The  appeal  to  Pilate  paved  the  way  for  the  '  lifting  on  high ' 
there  spoken  of.  The  Jewish  mode  of  putting  to  death  was  stoning. 
Oucifixion  was  a  Roman  punishment,  and  could  be  inflicted  by  the 
Roman  power  alone.    Hence,  accordingly,  the  fulfilment  of  that  '  word ' 


18:  33-35.]  JOHN  XVIII.  379 

words  of  Jesus  might  be  fulfilled,  which  he  spake, 
signifying  by  what  manner  of  death  he  should  die. 
33      Pilate  therefore  entered  into  the  ^  palace,  and  called 
Jesus,  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  the  King  of  the 
S4:  Jews  ?     Jesus  answered,  Sayest  thou  this  of  thyself, 
35  or  did  others  tell  it  thee  concerning  me  ?    Pilate  an- 
swered, Am  I  a  Jew?    Thine  own   nation  and  the 
chief  priests  delivered  thee  unto  me :  what  hast  thou 

•1  Gr.  Prsetorium. 

of  Jesus  by  the  very  persons  who  seemed  to  have  Him  completely  in 
their  hands.     So  far  from  its  being  so,  they  were  in  His. 

Ver.  33.  The  emphasis  of  the  question  is  remarkable.  The  word 
'thou'  stands  in  the  original  at  the  head  of  the  sentence,  as  if  Pilate 
would  say:  *Thou,^hou  so  humbled,  despised,  handed  over  tome 
as  a  malefactor, — ai't  thou  the  King  of  the  Jews?'  Pilate  may  not 
embrace  the  idea,  but  he  at  least  thinks  the  question  worthy  of  being 
asked.  We  may  notice  already  that  grouping  of  his  materials  by 
which  the  Evangelist  would  impress  on  us  the  folly  as  well  as  the  sin 
of  the  Jews.  Boasting  of  their  superiority  to  the  heathen  governor, 
looking  upon  him  as  a  '  sinner '  and  reprobate,  they  yet  at  this  mo- 
ment fall  behind  him  in  spiritual  vision.  They  treat  the  claim  of 
royal  dignity  on  the  part  of  Jesus  as  blasphemy.  Pilate  asks,  '  Can 
it  be  true?  '  The  charge  leading  to  the  question,  omitted  by  John  as 
not  necessary  to  his  purpose,  is  given  in  Luke  23  :  2. 

Yer.  34.  Many  reasons  have  been  suggested  to  account  for  this 
question  of  Jesus.  The  real  reason  seems  to  be,  that  the  guilt  of 
those  now  compassing  His  death  may  be  fixed  upon  the  proper  parties. 
It  is  to  appear  that  not  Pilate  before  whose  bar  He  stands,  but  others 
altogether  are  the  guilty  ones.  The  object  is  attained,  for  Pilate's 
answer  shows  that  he  knew  of  no  harm  in  Jesus. 

Ver.  35.  Nothing  could  more  strongly  express  the  contempt  of  the 
Roman  governor  for  the  Jews  than  these  fii'st  words  in  reply,  '  Am  I 
a  Jew?'  No  words  of  Jesus  had  called  for  a  repudiation  of  Jewish 
birth,  but  He  had  spoken  in  such  a  way  as  might  imply  that  Pilate 
had  been  taking  counsel  with  the  Jews  about  His  case.  Take  counsel 
with  them  I  The  very  suggestion  of  such  a  thing  fills  the  governor's 
mind  with  disgust,  and  he  cries  out,  '  Am  I  a  Jew  ?  "What  have  I  to 
do  with  so  contemptible  a  race  ?  Thine  own  people  have  delivered 
thee  to  me.  But  for  them  and  for  their  wretched  squabbles  I  care 
not.  I  make  my  appeal  to  thyself.  Tell  me  thyself,  what  hast  thou 
done  ?  '  All  tends  to  bring  out  the  frightful  degradation  to  which 
'  the  Jews,'  the  very  flower  of  Judaism,  have  reduced  themselves.  A 
Gentile  treats  them  with  open  scorn,  and  prefers  the  words  of  one 
brought  before  him  as  a  malefactor  to  theirs. 


380  JOHN  XVIII.  [18 :  36, 37. 

36  doue?  Jesus  answered,  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world  :  if  my  kingdom  were  of  this  workl  then  would 
my  ^  servants  fight,  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to 
the  Jews :  but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from  hence. 

37  Pilate  therefore  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  a  king  then  ? 
Jesus  answered,  ^  Thou  sayest  that*  I  am  a  king.  To 

^  Or,  officers :  as  in  vers.  3,  12,  18,  22.  2  Or,  Thou  sayest  it,  because  I  am  a  kvTyg. 

*  For  '•  Thou  sayest  that  "  etc.,  read,  "  Thou  sayest  it,  for  I  am  a  king  "  and  sub- 
stitute the  present  text  for  the  niarg.     [comp.  Luke  22 :  70.] — Am.  Com. 

Ver.  36.  Pilate  had  hardly  comprehended  the  charge  that  Jesus 
made  Himself  a  King.  That  Jesus  really  was  so  is  the  great  point 
now  to  be  established, — the  point  to  the  confession  of  which  Pilate 
shall  ultimately  be  bi'ought.  Jesus,  accordingly,  without  replying  di- 
rectly to  the  question,  'What  hast  thou  done?'  turns  to  this.  It  is 
not  His  chief  aim  to  explain  the  distinction  between  a  spiritual  and  a 
political  kingdom,  a  distinction  which  the  Roman  governor  would 
hardly  have  been  able  to  appreciate.  It  is  to  satisfy  Pilate  that  He 
may  be  and  is  a  King,  although  in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which 
Pilate  understood  the  word.  For  the  same  purpose  He  adds,  'Then 
would  my  servants  strive  that  I  should  not  be  delivered  to  the  Jews : ' 
— where  the  word  'servants'  (the  same  as  'oflBcers'  in  ver.  18)  does 
not  point  to  spiritual  disciples  of  the  Lord,  but  to  such  as  would  be 
His  attendants  and  soldiers  if  He  were  a  monarch  of  this  world.  The 
mark  of  an  earthly  kingdom  thus  selected  is  precisely  to  the  purpose 
of  our  Lord's  argument  as  we  have  understood  it,  Pilate  thought  that 
He  could  not  be  a  King,  else  His  servants  would  strive  to  prevent  His 
present  humiliation  and  fate.  That  is  no  argument  against  My  royal 
claims  in  their  true  sense,  is  the  reply,  for  My  kingdom  is  not  one 
that  has  its  origin  in  this  world.  In  short,  the  whole  argument  is  not 
one  of  self-defence  alone :  it  is  intended  to  lead  Pilate  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment that  the  prisoner  before  him  is  a  King.  Thus  also  the  '  now ' 
must  be  understood  as  the  '  now  '  of  the  Divine  counsels,  not  of  merely 
present  time.  The  period  can  never  come  when  other  words  than 
those  before  us  may  be  used  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  It  is  never  '  of 
this  world,'  never  '  from  hence.' 

Ver.  37.  It  is  of  importance  to  notice  the  difference  of  construction 
between  the  question  as  put  here  and  at  ver.  33.  There  'Thou' 
stands  in  the  first  place,  here  the  '  King.'  The  difference  corresponds 
exactly  to  the  course  of  thought  which  we  have  endeavored  to  trace. 
In  the  first  passage  '  thou  '  is  emphatic  ;  '  thou  so  poor,  so  humbled, 
^AowaKing?'  In  the  second  'King'  is  emphatic;  'a  King  then, 
high  as  that  is,  art  thou?  '  In  the  first  the  thing  is  regarded  as  im- 
possible ;  in  the  second  the  possibility  has  dawned  upon  the  mind. — 
Jesus  ansvrered,  thou  sayest  that  I  am  a  King.  It  iij  hardly 
possible  to  understand  these  words  as.a  directly  affirmative  reply  to  the 
question  of  Pilate,  for  Pilate  had  not  acknowledged  that  Jesus  was  a 


18:  38.]  JOHN  XVIII  381 

this  end  have  I  been  born,  and  to  this  end  am  I  come 
into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the 
truth.     Every  one  that  is  of  the   truth  heareth  my 
38  voice.     Pilate  saith  unto  him,  What  is  truth  ? 

And  when  he  said  this,  he  went  out  again  unto  the 
Jews,  and  saith  unto  them,  I  find  no  crime  in  him. 

King.  It  seems  better  to  understand  them  in  the  sense,  '  Thou  usest 
the  word  king  in  regard  to  Me,  but  not  in  the  right  sense ' :  and  then 
the  following  words  point  out  what  it  was  that  really  conferred  on 
Jesus  the  empire  that  He  claimed. — To  this  end  have  I  been 
born,  etc.  The  transition  hjere  from  the  thought  of  kingship  to  that 
of  'witnessing'  is  very  remarkable.  It  is  to  be  explained  by  the  con- 
sideration that,  as  'the  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto, 
but  to  minister,'  and  as  the  true  glory  of  His  work  lay  in  submission 
to  the  demands  of  self-denying  love,  so  His  kingdom  consists  in  wit- 
nessing to  that  eternal  truth  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  existence, 
which  all  were  created  to  own,  and  in  which  alone  is  life.  The  word 
'witness'  must  be  taken  in  a  very  emphatic  sense.  Jesus  is  not  only 
the  perfect,  He  is  also  the  free  and  willing  Exponent  or  Revealer  of 
all  this  truth  to  men.  It  is  in  His  entire  and  voluntary  surrender  to 
it  that  His  kingdom  lies:  His  service  is  really  His  authority  and 
power.  In  this  respect,  too,  His  dominion  is  universal  over  all  who 
will  own  The  truth :  bowing  to  it  they  must  bow  to  Him  in  whom  it  is 
contained  and  by  whom  it  is  'declared.'  Thus  in  His  iritnessing  He  is 
King.  We  cannot  fail  to  notice  how  the  absoluteness  of  this  witness- 
ing is  brought  out  by  means  of  the  formula  used  by  Jewish  writers,  '  I 
have  been  born  and  am  come,'  as  well  as  by  the  twice  repeated  'to 
this  end.'  For  this  Jesus  had  become  incarnate :  for  this  He  was  still 
standing  there.  Was  not  such  a  witness  to  '  the  truth '  in  all  its  glori- 
ous range  of  meaning  in  reality  the  universal  King? 

Ver.  38.  Pilate  saith  unto  him.  What  is  truth  ?  Not  surely 
the  question  of  one  seriously  searching  after  truth,  for  in  that  case  he 
would  have  waited  for  a  reply;  nor  that  of  one  in  despair,  which 
would  presuppose  a  moral  depth  in  Pilate's  character  inconsistent 
with  the  light  in  which  he  comes  before  us  both  here  and  elsewhere ; 
nor  of  mere  frivolity,  as  if  he  were  treating  the  whole  subject  lightly, 
for  in  that  case  he  would  probably  have  made  fewer  efforts  to  release 
Jesus;  but  simply  the  question  of  one  who,  having  no  correct  ideas  as 
to  truth,  and  no  conviction  even  that  there  was  such  a  thing,  found  in 
this  frame  of  mind  a  hindrance  to  the  faith  to  which  he  might  other- 
wise have  risen.  'Were  there  such  a  thing  as  truth,'  he  says,  '  then 
I  might  believe  Thee,  but  truth  is  nothing,  and  therefore  Thy  kingly 
position,  if  in  this  respect  only  Thou  art  a  King,  need  not  command 
my  homage.' — I  find  in  him  no  crime.  It  is  a  distinct  sentence 
of  acquittal;  and  the  point  of  the  whole,  as  it  presented  itself  to  the 
eye  of  the  Evangelist,  seems  to  be  in  this,  that  a  Roman  governor,  a 


382  JOHN  XVIII.  [18:39,40. 

39  But  ye  have  a  custom,  that  I  should  release  unto  you 
one  at  the  passover :  will  ye  therefore  that  I  release 

40  unto  you  the  King  of  the  Jews  ?     They  cried  out 

Gentile,  declares  the  innocence  and  even  feels  to  some  extent  the  true 
majesty  of  Him  who,  though  King  of  the  Jews,  is  rejected  and  doomed 
to  death  by  that  blinded  and  guilty  people.  The  guilt  of  theirs,  how- 
ever, has  to  be  brought  out  more  fully.  Another  opportunity  of  re- 
tracing their  steps  has  to  be  offered  them,  and  to  be  cast  away. 

Ver.  39.  The  origin  of  the  custom  thus  alluded  to  is  unknown, 
although  it  is  generally  supposed  with  no  small  measure  of  probability 
that,  as  connected  with  the  Passover,  it  had  been  introduced  as  a 
symbolical  expression  of  the  deliverance  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt.  Pi- 
late's object  in  making  the  proposal  and  in  styling  Jesus  the  King  of 
the  Jews  is  neither  'unwise  mocking  bitterness,'  nor  'abortive  cun- 
ning.' He  had  been  impressed  by  the  majesty  of  Jesus,  and  was 
satisfied  of  His  innocence.  But  he  had  no  depth  of  feeling  in  the 
matter,  and  his  sense  of  justice  was  hardly  awakened  by  it.  Any 
irony  in  his  words  therefore  has  reference  to  the  Jews,  and  not  to 
Jesus.  Surely  the  poverty,  the  humiliation,  the  sufferings  of  the  lat- 
ter make  Him  a  fit  King  for  the  former.  As  he  really  cares  not  what 
becomes  of  Him,  but  sees  no  reason  to  detain  Him,  he  will  make  an 
effort  to  let  Him  go. — One  subordinate  circumstance  connected  with 
the  words  now  before  us  must  be  noticed.  They  supply  an  argument 
for  the  fact  that  the  Passover  had  begun,  and  that  John  cannot  be 
understood  in  other  passages  to  mean  that  it  was  still  to  be  celebrated, 
on  the  evening  of  the  day  following  the  night  in  which  we  at  present 
find  ourselves.  Even  were  it  true,  as  urged  by  some,  that  the  phrase 
'at  the  Passover'  might  have  been  used  of  the  14th  as  well  as  the 
15th  Nisan,  it  is  to  be  observed  that,  on  the  supposition  of  variance 
between  John  and  his  predecessors,  the  14th,  according  to  the  ordi- 
nary method  of  reckoning,  was  not  yet  come,  because  daylight  of  the 
14th  had  not  yet  broken.  But  if  so,  we  must  either  accept  the  sup- 
position that  '  at '  or  rather  '  in '  the  Passover  could  be  applied  to  the 
night  between  the  13th  and  the  14th  (for  Pilate  is  speaking  of  the 
present  moment),  or  we  must  reject  the  idea  that  this  last  is  the  night 
in  which  we  are  now  standing.  The  former  supposition,  besides  being 
in  a  high  degree  improbable,  is  destitute  of  all  proof;  and  the  only 
theory  consistent  with  the  facts  is  that  which  proceeds  upon  the  per- 
fect harmony  of  all  the  Evangelists,  placing  us,  at  the  instant  before 
us,  in  the  night  between  the  14th  and  the  15th.  It  may  be  worth 
while  to  add  that  those  who  understand  the  words  of  chap.  19:  14, 
'the  preparation  of  the  Passover,'  as  meaning  the  day  previous  to  it, 
have  no  right  to  say  that  when  ihe  words  'at  the  Passover'  occur 
here,  we  are  substantially  at  the  same  point  of  time.  Surely  3  a.m. 
cannot  be  said  to  be  'at  the  Passover,'  and  6  a.m.  to  be  'the  prepara- 
tion of  the  Passover.' 

Ver.  40.     The  word  'again'  is  here  peculiarly  worthy  of  notice. 


19:  1,2.]  JOHN  XIX. 


therefore  again,  saying,  Xot  this  man,  but  Barabbas. 
Now  Barabbas  was  a  robber. 

Chapter  19  :  1-16. 
Jesiis  before  Filate.     Second  Part. 

1  Then  Pilate  therefore  took  Jesa?,  and  scourged* him. 

2  And  the  soldiers  plaited  a  crown  of  thorns,  and  put  it 
on  his  head,  and  arrayed  him  in  a  purple  garment ; 

Xo  previous  cry  of  the  Jews  had  been  mentioned  by  the  Evangelist ; 
and,  had  his  story  been  constructed  merely  to  illustrate  an  idea,  he 
certainly  would  not  have  spoken  of  a  second  cry  when  he  had  said 
nothing  of  a  first.  The  word  can  only  be  a  historical  reminiscence  in 
the  writer's  own  mind.  He  knew  that  the  Jews  had  cried  out  before, 
although  he  had  not  thought  it  necessary  to  mention  it.  Xow,  there- 
fore, when  a  cry  was  to  be  spoken  of,  which  he  remembers  was  a  sec- 
ond one,  an  indication  that  it  was  so  comes  naturally  from  his  pen : 
♦They  cried  out  therefore  again.'  The  cry  was,  'Xot  this  man,  but 
Barabbas;'  and  the  guilty  nature  of  the  cry  is  immediately  intensified 
by  a  brief,  but  emphatic  statement,  designed  far  more  to  bring  out 
this  guilt  than  to  make  us  acquainted  with  a  fact  of  history. — Now 
Barabbas  -was  a  robber.  A  robber  I  and  yet  they  preferred  him 
to  the  holy  Jesus,  to  the  Only-Begotten  of  the  Father,  to  their  King. 

Jems  before  Pilate,  vers.  1-16. 

Contents. — The  dreadful  tragedy  is  still  continued ;  and  that  it  is  so  in  the  same 
line  of  thought  and  with  the  same  object  as  before,  is  evident  from  the  parallelism 
between  chap.  18:  .3.^-40  and  chMp.  19:  1-16.  The  subject  is  the  humiliation  of 
Jesus,  the  half-hearted  efforts  of  Pilate  to  release  Him,  and  the  determined  hostility 
and  cruelty  of  the  Jews. 

Yer.  1.  Then  Pilate  therefore  took  Jesus  and  scourged 
him.  It  is  the  scourging  itself  that  is  t^e  prominent  thought,  not  the 
fact  that  it  was  inflicted  by  order  of  Pilate.  The  name  of  the  governor 
indeed  is  mentioned ;  but  this  seems  simply  to  be  because  without  his 
authority  the  punishment  could  not  have  been  inflicted.  The  punish- 
ment is  itself  the  main  point — the  increasing  sufi'erings  of  Jesus  and 
His  deepening  humiliation  and  agony  as,  under  the  pressure  of  His 
sinful  nation.  He  goes  onward  to  the  cross.  In  the  first  picture  (18: 
33-40)  Jesus  is  simply  the  prisoner  bound;  in  the  second,  that  before 
us.  He  is  the  prisoner  scourged  and  treated  with  contemptuous  mock- 
ing of  His  royal  claims.     This  mockery  follows  the  scourging. 

Vers.  2,  3.  All  is  in  mockery  of  His  royal  claims:  first  the  crown 
of  thorns,  secondly  the  purple  robe,  thirdly  the  coming  to  Him  with 
mock  obeisance,  fourthly  the  '  Hail,   King  of  the  Jews,'  fifthly  the 


384  JOHN  XIX.  [19 :  3-6. 

3  and  they  came  unto  him,  and  said,  Hail  !  King  of  the 

4  Jews  !  and  they  struck  him  ^  with  their  hands.  And 
Pilate  WTut  out  again,  and  saith  unto  them,  Behold,  I 
bring  him  out  to  you,  that  ye  may  know  that  I  find 

5  no  crime  in  him.  Jesus  therefore  came  out,  wearing 
the  crown  of  thorns  and  the  purple  garment.     And 

6  Filate  saith  unto  them,  Behold,  the  man  !  When 
therefore  the  chief  priests  and  the  officers  saw  him, 

1  Or,  with  rods. 

blows  with  their  hands.  We  include  this  last  in  the  same  series  as 
the  acts  preceding  it,  for  the  Evangelist,  by  his  peculiar  language,  ap- 
pears to  mean  more  than  that  Jesus  was  struck.  The  blows  are  the 
mock  presents  that  the  subjects  bring.  They  approach  Jesus  with 
lowliness  and  with  a  '  Hail ; '  and  then,  as  if  laying  their  offerings  at 
His  feet,  they  strike  Him.  The  picture  of  humiliation  and  suffering 
is  drawn  in  striking  colors,  and  its  advance  upon  that  of  chap.  18  must 
be  obvious  to  every  reader.  A  similar  advance  appears  in  the  next 
two  verses. 

Vers.  4,  5.  The  difference  between  the  situation  here  and  that  at 
18 :  39  does  not  lie  so  much  in  the  actual  words  in  which  Pilate  pro- 
claims the  innocence  of  Jesus,  as  in  the  fact  that  on  the  former  occa- 
sion he  left  Jesus  in  the  palace,  and  came  out  alone  to  the  Jews  with 
his  verdict  of  acquittal ;  while  here  he  leads  Jesus  forth,  exhibiting 
such  a  bearing  toward  Him  that  the  Jews  may  themselves  perceive 
that  he  considers  Him  to  be  innocent.  It  is  further  evident  from  the 
words  of  ver.  8,  '  he  was  tJie  more  afraid,'  that  a  mysterious  awe  had 
already  taken  possession  of  his  soul,  an  awe  increased  no  doubt  by  the 
message  of  his  wife  (Matt.  27 :  19)  which  had  just  before  reached  him. 
In  his  words  '  Behold  the  man ! '  we  have  a  clear  trace  of  the  sympa- 
thy and  pity  existing  in  his  breast.  He  speaks  of  the  'man,'  not  of 
the  '  king.'  It  is  the  human  sufferer  to  whom  he  draws  attention, 
one  whose  sufferings  and  whole  aspect  would  have  melted  any  heart 
not  dehumanized  by  personal  envy  or  that  fierce  spirit  of  revenge 
which  has  marked  ecclesiastical  fanaticism  in  every  age.  So  far, 
however,  as  he  expected  to  touch  the  hearts  of  the  Jews  by  the  spec- 
tacle presented  to  them,  he  is  doomed  to  be  disappointed. 

Ver.  6.  When  therefore  the  chief  priests  and  officers  saw 
him,  they  cried  out,  saying,  Crucify  !  Crucify !  The  advanee 
from  what  is  stated  at  18:  40  to  the  present  point  is  at  once  percepti- 
ble. Then  the  .Jews  refused  to  have  Jesus  released  to  them,  and  cried 
out  for  Barabbas.  Now  their  cry  reaches  its  culmination,  'Crucify! 
Crucify ! ' — Pilate  saith  unto  them,  Take  him  yourselves,  and 
crucify  him ;  for  I  find  no  crime  in  him.  The  words  do  not 
seem  to  contain  any  serious  authorization  on  the  part  of  Pilate  to  the 
Jews  to  crucify  Jesus.     The  latter  at  least  did  not  understand  them  in 


19 :  7-9.J  JOHN  XIX.  385 

they  cried  out,  saying,  Crucify  hirrij  crucify  him.     Pi- 
late saith  unto  them,  Take  him  yourselves,  and  cru- 

7  cify  him :  for  I  find  no  crime  in  him.  The  Jews 
answered  him,  AVe  have  a  law,  and  by  that  law  he 
ought  to  die,  because   he  made  himself  the  Son   of 

8  God.     When  Pilate  therefore  heard  this  saying,  he 

9  was  the  more  afraid  ;  and  he  entered  into  the  ^  palace 
again,  and  saith  unto  Jesus,  Whence  art  thou  ?     But 

1  Gr.  Prsetorium. 

that  sense,  or  they  would  probably  have  at  once  availed  themselves  of 
the  permission  given.  The  emphatic  '  yourselves '  guides  us  to  the 
true  interpretation.  There  is  in  the  -words  partly  scorn  of  the  Jews, 
partly  the  resolution  of  Pilate  to  free  himself  from  all  responsibility  in 
the  guilty  deed  which  he  began  to  see  could  hardly  be  avoided.  It  is 
as  if  he  would  say,  'Is  He  to  be  crucified?  then  it  shall  be  by  your- 
selves, and  not  by  me.'  The  Jews,  accordingly,  are  sensible  that  they 
dare  not  avail  themselves  of  the  permission.  They  must  adduce  fresh 
reasons  for  the  sentence  of  condemnation  whieh  they  desire. 

Ver.  7.  The  'We'  is  emphatic.  'Thou,  Pilate,  mayest  pronounce 
Him  innocent ;  and  He  may  be  innocent  of  all  such  crimes  as  are 
wont  to  be  tried  at  thy  bar.  But  We  have  a  law,  and  that  law  de- 
nounces death  to  persons  like  Him  ;  for  He  made  Himself  Son  of  God.' 
The  law  referred  to  is  Lev.  2-4:  IB,  and  the  crime  is  that  Jesus  re- 
presented Himself  to  be  what  He  really  was.  8uch  was  the  guilt  of 
the  Jews.  Not  upon  false  pretences,  but  upon  the  greatest  of  all 
falsehoods,  the  misinterpretation  of  the  truth, — in  the  thickest  of  all 
darkness,  the  light  itself  made  darkness, — they  hurried  Jesus  to  His 
doom.     The  effect  upon  Pilate  of  this  charge  they  had  not  anticipated. 

Vers.  8,  9.  The  remarkable  expression  by  which  the  Evangelist 
designates  the  language  of  the  Jews  deserves  our  notice, — '  this  word.' 
It  is  not  a  mere  saying  that  the  Jews  have  uttered.  It  is  a  '  word.' 
The  Divine  is  in  it.  At  the  very  time  when  they  are  pursuing  the 
Lord  of  glory  to  His  death,  they  are  unconsciously  impelled  by  a 
Divine  power  to  ascribe  to  Him  the  glory  that  is  His  due.  We  are 
not  indeed  to  suppose  that  Pilate  felt  this.  But  the  strange  awe — the 
sense  of  mystery — that  had  come  over  him  before  is  deepened  in  His 
mind.  He  must  renew  his  investigation  with  all  seriousness;  and  for 
this  purpose  he  goes  again  into  the  palace,  taking  Jesus  with  him,  and 
asks  Him,  'Whence  art  thou  ?  '  The  question  has  certainly  no  refer- 
ence to  the  place  where  Jesus  had  been  born,  or  from  which  He  had 
come  to  Jerusalem.  It  is  a  deeper  origin  that  is  asked  after.  Art 
thou  from  this  world,  or  from  another?  a  man,  or  from  the  gods? — 
But  Jesus  gave  him  no  ans^wer.  The  question  had  not  been 
asked  in  the  spirit  to  which  an  answer  was  never  refused.  Pilate 
had  no  sense  either  of  sin  or  need.  Even  had  he  been  answered  and 
25 


386  JOHN  XIX.  [17:  10-12. 

10  Jesns  gave  him  no  answer.  Pilate  therefore  saith 
unto  him,  Speakest  thou  not  unto  me?  knowest  thou 
not  that  I  have  ^  power  to   release  thee,   and   have 

11  ^  power  to  crucify  thee  ?  Jesus  answered  him,  Thou 
wouldest  have  no  ^  power  against  me,  except  it  were 
given  thee  from  above ;   therefore  he  that  delivered 

12  me  unto  thee  hath  greater  sin.  Upon  this  Pilate 
sought  to  release  him  :  but  the  Jews  cried  out,  saying, 

1  Or,  anthoriti/. 

received  the  answer  as  true,  he  would  only  have  bestowed  freedom 
upon  One  who  sought  nothing  for  Himself:  he  would  not  have  'be- 
lieved.' That  this  was  the  state  of  his  mind  is  clearly  indicated  in 
the  words  next  spoken  by  him. 

Ver.  10.  There  is  no  trace  of  spiritual  feeling  in  these  words  ; 
nothing  but  the  sense  of  offended  dignity,  that  to  one  in  his  position, 
and  possessed  of  his  power,  a  poor  prisoner  should  decline  to  reply. 
Hence  the  position  of  'to  me,'  at  the  head  of  the  sentence,  and  hence 
the  twice  repeated  'power,'  to  emphasize  the  authority  which  he  pos- 
sessed. The  mention  of  'release'  comes  first,  as  the  consideration 
most  likely  to  tell  upon  one  in  the  danger  in  which  Jesus  stood.  To 
this  remark  of  Pilate  an  answer  is  given. 

Ver.  11.  These  words  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  source 
whence  Pilate  derived  his  power, — '  from  above,' — was  the  same  as 
that  whence  Jesus  came.  In  using  his  power,  therefore,  against  the 
Son  of  God,  he  was  really  fighting  against  God.  'For  this  cause.' 
also,  he  that  delivered  Jesus  up  to  him  (not  Judas  or  Caiaphas  only, 
but  whosoever  shared  in  the  deed)  had  'greater  sin.'  Why  'greater'? 
Partly,  perhaps,  because  the  delivei-ing  up  was  the  first  step  in  the 
process  of  invoking  against  God  the  power  of  God  ;  mainly,  because 
the  sin  thus  committed  was,  on  the  part  of  those  who  were  guilty  of 
it,  a  sin  against  greater  light  than  in  Pilate's  case.  The  Jews  pro- 
fessed to  know  (and  ought  to  have  known)  God  better  than  the  heathen 
judge.  They  ought  to  have  known  better  than  he  the  true  nature  of 
that  source  '  from  above,'  from  which  they  derived  their  power. 
Therefore  their  sin,  a  sin  against  God,  was  in  them  'greater '  than  in 
him.  In  this  reply  Jesus  had  done  more  than  speak  as  an  innocent 
man.  He  had  assumed  a  position  of  superiority  alike  to  His  accusers 
and  His  judge.  The  effect  produced  upon  Pilate  was  proportion- 
ately great. 

Ver.  12.  The  verb  'sought '  in  the  original  implies  that  Pilate  now 
made  repeated  attempts,  not  recorded,  to  effect  with  consent  of  the 
Jews  the  release  of  his  prisoner.  The  attempts  were  vain. — But  the 
Jews  cried  out,  saying,  etc.  The  term  'Csesar's  friend'  had 
been,  since  the  time  of  Augustus,  conferred  by  the  emperor  upon 
legates  and  prefects  as  an  honorable  distinction.     It  is  not  improbable 


19:  13,  14.]  JOHN  XIX.  387 

If  thou  release  this  man,  thou  art  not  Caesar's  friend  : 
every  one  that  maketh  himself  a  king '  speaketh  against 

13  Caesar.  When  Pilate  therefore  heard  these  words,  he 
brought  Jesus  out,  and  sat  down  on  the  judgement- 
seat  at  a  place  called  The  Pavement,  but  in  Hebrew 

14  Gabbatha.  Now  it  was  the  Preparation  of  the  pass- 
over  :  it  w^as  about  the  sixth  hour.     And  he  saith  unto 

1  Or,  Opposeth  Csesar. 

that  the  hope  of  obtaining  it  might  even  now  be  floating  before  Pilate's 
eyes.  The  argument,  although  not  deliberately  reserved  for  this  mo- 
ment, but  dictated  by  the  quick  insight  of  excited  passion,  was  thus 
fitted  to  tell  most  powerfully  upon  him.  How  it  did  tell  the  sequel 
shows.  AVe  shall  err,  however,  if  we  imagine  that  the  only  object  of 
John  in  mentioning  the  circumstance  is  to  point  out  the  consideration 
to  which  Pilate  yielded.  He  has  another  object  far  more  nearly  at 
heart, — to  exhibit  the  woeful,  the  self-confessed,  degradation  to  which 
the  proud  Jewish  people,  by  their  opposition  to  Jesus,  had  reduced 
themselves.  Something  similar  had  been  already  noted  by  him  at 
chap.  11:  48,  but  that  fell  far  short  of  what  is  exhibited  here.  In 
order  to  effect  their  guilty  end,  they  by  whom  the  friendship  of 
Caesar  was  regarded  as  degradation  and  not  honor,  appeal  ro  the  desire 
for  it  as  a  noble  ambition ;  they  who  would  fain  have  trampled  the 
authority  of  Caesar  under  foot  as  the  source  of  the  oppression  from 
which  they  suffered,  and  of  the  loss  of  all  the  ancient  glories  of  their 
nation,  represent  the  effort  to  maintain  it  as  one  that  loyalty  ought  to 
make.  With  what  clearness  does  the  Evangelist  see  these  wretched 
*  Jews,'  in  the  very  act  of  accomplishing  their  ends,  plunging  them- 
selves into  the  greatest  depths  of  ignominy  and  shame !  The  effect  of 
the  appeal  is  not  lost  upon  Pilate. 

Ver.  13.  The  decisive  moment  is  now  come;  and,  according  to  the 
frequent  method  of  our  Evangelist,  the  way  is  prepared  for  it  by  the 
mention  of  several  particulars.  First,  we  have  the  place.  It  was 
not  in  the  palace,  but  at  a  spot  called  in  the  Aramaic  tongue  Gabba- 
tha, and  in  the  Greek  the  Pavement.  The  Greek  name  was  probably 
given  because  the  floor  was  laid  down  in  the  mosaic  work  common  in 
those  days  in  places  of  importance,  such  as  theatres  and  halls  of  jus- 
tice, and  before  altars  of  the  gods.  It  literally  means  inlaid  with  stones. 
The  Aramaic  word  Gabbatha  signifies  a  hill  or  elevated  spot  of  ground, 
so  that  we  are  to  think  of  a  spot  in  the  open  air  where  a  tribunal  was 
erected  on  a  rising  ground,  the  top  of  which  was  laid  with  tesselated 
pavement.     The  time  is  not  noted. 

Ver.  14.  And  it  was  Preparation -day  of  the  passover ;  it 
was  about  the  sixth  hour.  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  diSi- 
eulties  connected  with  each  of  these  two  clauses  are  very  great.  We 
shall  endeavor  to  indicate  as  clearly  as  our  space  will  permit  the  solu- 


JOHN  XIX.  [19 :  14. 


tion  that  we  propose.  1.  It  is  urged  that  the  first  clause  means,  'It 
■was  the  preparation  of  the  Passover,"  that  is,  the  day  before  it.  Diffi- 
culties are  thus  removed  at  the  cost  of  making  John  contradict  the 
earlier  Evangelists  as  to  tlie  night  when  the  Last  Supper  was  insti- 
tuted, and  the  day  when  Jesus  was  crucified.  Apart  from  all  con- 
sideration of  the  new  difficulty  thus  created,  we  observe— (1)  That  the 
interpretation  thus  offered  makes  the  Evangelist  contradict  himself 
(comp.  what  has  been  said  on  18:  oO  ;  and  bear  in  mind  that  Pilate 
at  the  moment  there  spoken  of  released  Barabbas,  Matt.  27:  26; 
Mark  15 :  15 ;  Luke  23 :  25).  The  Passover  was  therefore  then  be- 
gun. To  speak  now  of  the  day  preceding  it  is  impossible.  (2)  The 
translation  'the  preparation'  cannot  be  accepted.  There  is  no  article 
in  the  original.  The  Greek  term  must  be  rendered  either  'a  prepara- 
tion,' or  it  must  be  taken  in  its  well-known  sense  of  'Friday,'  (3) 
It  has  never  been  sliown  that  the  day  before  the  Passover  was  called 
'  The  preparation  of  the  Passover.'  It  has  been  conjectured  that  it  was, 
because  it  is  believed  that  the  day  befm'e  the  Sabbath  was  called  '  The 
preparation  of  the  Sabbath.'  No  such  name  as  this  last  has  been  pointed 
out.  It  did  not — we  may  venture  to  say  that,  without  a  dilferent 
mode  of  connecting  the  two  words,  it  could  not — exist.  The  whole 
foundation  upon  which  rests  the  idea  of  a  day  called  '  the  preparation 
of  the  Passover'  is  removed.  2.  A  second  solution  is  offered.  By 
'preparation'  we  are  to  understand  Friday;  by  'the  Passover'  the 
Paschal  feast ;  by  the  whole  expression,  '  It  was  Friday  of  the  Paschal 
feast.'  There  is  much  in  this  to  be  accepted,  for  it  appears  from  Jose- 
phus  that  the  seven  days'  festival  was  often  designated  '  the  Passover,' 
and  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  rendering  '  Friday.'  The  diffi- 
culties, if  nothing  more  can  be  said,  are — (1)  To  see  why  the  words 
'  of  the  Paschal  feast '  should  be  added ;  they  are  unnecessary ;  and 
they  do  not  occur  at  ver  31,  although  the  day  there  spoken  of  is  the 
same  as  that  before  us  here.  (2)  That  it  is  not  easy  to  exclude  from 
the  original  the  thought  of  the  '  Paschal  lamb.'  That  is  the  proper 
rendering  of  the  Greek,  and  the  rendering  which  lies  closest  to  the 
whole  conception  and  drift  alike  of  the  chapters  with  which  we  are 
now  dealing  and  of  the  special  verses  in  which  mention  of  '  the  Pass- 
over' is  made,  Nothwithstanding  these  difficulties,  we  accept  this 
rendering  as  in  part  at  least  the  meaning  of  the  Evangelist.  The  diffi- 
culties will  vanish  when  we  consider  that  it  is  not  all  his  meaning. 
For,  in  truth,  he  seems  to  be  led  to  his  choice  of  the  particular  form 
of  expression  which  he  employs  by  the  tendency  that  we  have  so  fre- 
quently had  occasion  to  observe  in  him, — the  tendency  to  see  things 
in  the  doubles  presented  by  symbols  and  their  realities.  Both  the 
leading  words  of  the  clause  before  us  are  susceptible  of  this  double 
meaning;  and  it  is  because  they  are  so  that  we  find  them  here.  Thus 
— (1)  The  former  word  is  to  be  taken  in  its  double  sense,  '  a  prepara- 
tion' or  'Friday,'  (2)  The  words  rendered  'the  Passover,'  or  as  it 
might  be  simply  '  the  Pasche,'  are  to  be  taken  in  their  double  sense, 
« the  Paschal  lamb '  or  '  the  Paschal  feast  or  week.'     At  the  time  when 


19 :  14.]  JOHN  XIX.  889 

John  wrote,  if  not  also  much  earlier,  both  senses  were  in  use  in  the 
Christian  Church.  Exactly  then  as  in  chap.  3:  8  John  has  in  vie"w 
the  double  meaning  of  the  Greek  word  for  spirit  or  wind,  so  here  he 
has  in  view  the  double  meaning  of  these  expressions.  The  day  now 
dawning,  and  the  events  now  occurring,  were  '  a  preparation  of  the 
Paschal  Lamb' — yet  not  of  the  lamb  of  the  Jeicish  feast,  but  of  the  true 
Paschal  L  ivib,  Jesus  Himself, — of  the  Lamb  now  on  His  way  to  be 
sacrificed  for  the  life  of  His  people.  It  was  also  *  Friday  of  the  Pasche.' 
Both  these  meanings  are  prominent  to  the  eye  of  the  Evangelist;  and 
as,  with  the  ready  symbolism  possessed  b}^  the  symbolic  mind,  he  sees 
that  one  of  his  deepest  thoughts  can  be  expressed  by  words  which 
shall  at  the  same  time  express  an  outward  incident  of  the  scene,  he 
chooses  his  language  for  the  sake  of  the  richer  meaning  to  which  he  is 
thus  able  to  give  utterance.  The  view  now  taken  derives  confirma- 
tion from  the  fact  that  at  ver.  81  of  this  chapter,  where  the  word  'a 
preparation'  or  '  Friday'  is  again  used,  the  addition  'of  the  Passover' 
is  dropped.  Why  is  this?  Because  by  the  time  we  come  to  that  verse 
the  true  Paschal  Lamb  has  been  slain :  it  is  no  longer  possible,  there- 
fore, to  speak  of  a  preparation  of  Jesus.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
word  denotes  the  weekly  day  of  preparation  ('  Friday ')  it  is  clear  that 
in  ver.  31  any  explanatory  addition  would  be  superfluous.  The  par- 
ticular view  to  be  taken  of  chap.  19:  28-37  will  also  lend  confirmation 
to  what  has  been  said.  The  second  clause  of  the  words  with  which 
we  now  deal  is  much  more  easily  explained  than  the  first:  -and  it  was 
about  the  sixth  hour.'  If  this  hour  be  according  to  Jewish  modes  of 
reckoning  12  (noon),  we  are  in  direct  conflict  with  Mark  15:  25, 
*  and  it  was  the  third  hour,  and  they  crucified  Him.'  There,  at  9 
A.  M.,  the  crucifixion  takes  place.  Here,  at  noon,  the  sentence  is  not 
yet  pronounced.  The  main  elements  of  the  solution  are  to  be  found 
in  what  has  been  already  said  Avith  regard  to  the  mode  of  reckoning 
time  employed  in  this  Gospel.  'The  sixth  hour'  is  thus  6  a.  m.,  an 
hour  supplying  us,  as  nearly  as  it  is  possible  for  us  to  imagine,  with 
the  space  of  time  needed  for  the  events  already  past  that  night,  as  well 
as  with  that  needed  for  things  still  to  be  done  before  the  crucifixion 
at  9  A.  M.  To  these  considerations  has  to  be  added  the  fact,  that  Pi- 
late now  for  the  first  time  took  his  formal  place  upon  the  judgment 
seat,  and  pronounced  sentence  with  the  suitable  solemnities  of  law. 
But  by  Roman  law  this  could  not  be  done  before  6  a.  m.  ;  and  it  is 
much  more  likely  that  Pilate  would  embrace  the  earliest  opportunity 
of  ridding  himself  of  a  disagreeable  case  than  that  he  would  carry  on 
the  process  until  noon.  Both  the  place  and  the  time  for  the  last  step 
in  the  trial  of  Jesus  have  now  been  mentioned.  Pilate  is  on  his  judg- 
ment seat,  on  a  spot  elevated  above  the  people.  The  true  Lamb  of 
God  is  before  him  ready  for  the  sacrifice.  The  awful  'hour  is  come.' 
— And  he  saith  unto  the  Jew^s,  Behold,  your  King!  The 
words  are  not  spoken  sarcastically  of  Jesus,  but  contemptuously  of 
the  Jews.  Pilate  had  no  motive  for  being  sarcastic  with  regard  to  the 
former.     He  had  been  impressed  by  the  spectacle  of  meekness  and  in- 


390  JOHN  XIX.  [19:  15,  16. 

15  the  Jews,  Behold,  your  King !  They  therefore  cried 
out,  Away  with  him,  away  with  him,  crucify  him. 
Pikite  saith  unto  them,  Shall  I  crucify  your  King  ? 
The  chief  priests  answered,  We  have  no  king  but 

16  Caesar.  Then  therefore  he  delivered  him  unto  them 
to  be  crucified. 

nocence  which  Jesus  presented.  He  would  have  set  Him  free  had  he 
possessed  sufficient  earnestness  and  depth  of  moral  character  to  carry 
into  effect  what  he  knew  to  be  right.  We  cannot,  therefore,  suppose 
that  he  has  any  wish  to  treat  Jesus  with  contempt.  But  all  the  more 
that  this  was  the  case,  and  that  his  own  conscience  was  reproving  him 
for  his  weakness,  would  his  contempt  be  increased  for  those  who  were 
urging  him  to  act  unjustly.  His  secret  displeasure  with  himself  would 
seek  satisfaction  in  his  indignation  and  disgust  with  them.  He  had 
shown  his  contempt  for  the  Jews  from  the  first  (comp.  ver.  35),  and 
now,  with  that  contempt  raised  to  its  highest  point,  he  says  '  Behold, 
your  King.'  It  is  possible  also  that  in  these  words  the  Evangelist  sees 
one  of  those  unconscious  prophecies  of  Divine  declarations  concern- 
ing Jesus  of  which  we  have  had  repeated  illustrations  in  this  Gospel. 

Ver.  15.  They  therefore  cried  out,  Av^ay  Twith  him,  away 
■with  him,  crucify  him.  Instinct  tells  them  that  the  last  moment 
when  they  may  accomplish  their  object  is  arrived;  and,  roused  to  the 
utmost  pitch  of  fury  by  the  words  of  Pilate,  they  cry  out,  with  a  quick 
repetition  of  woi^ds  corresponding  to  their  feelings :  Let  him  be  hur- 
ried off  to  crucifixion.  But  Pilate  will  still  further  provoke  them, 
still  further  pour  out  his  contempt  upon  them. — Pilate  saith  unto 
them.  Shall  I  crucify  your  King  ?  Then  follow  those  words 
evidently  so  full  of  meaning  to  the  Evangelist. — The  chief  priests 
answered.  We  have  no  king  but  Caesar.  The  chief  priests, 
the  heads  of  the  Theocracy  of  Israel,  give  the  answer,  which  thus 
comes  upon  us  with  a  more  terrible  force  than  it  could  otherwise  have 
done.  Whan  an  answer  is  it !  It  is  the  utterance  of  self-condemna- 
tion, the  renouncing  of  the  chief  honor  of  the  chosen  people,  the  cast- 
ing away  of  what  had  most  distinguished  them  in  the  past,  of  what 
they  hoped  most  from  in  the  future:  'We  have  no  king  but  Csesar.' 
God  is  rejected;  Messianic  hope  is  trampled  under  foot.  In  the  mo- 
moment  of  secui-ing  the  death  of  their  true  King,  'the  Jews,'  by  the 
mouth  of  tlieir  leaders  and  representatives,  plunge  themselves  into 
the  lowest  depths  of  guilt  and  shame. 

Ver.  16  a.  The  tragedy  has  reached  its  climax  ;  and  in  this  single 
sentence  the  rest  of  the  direful  story  may  be  told. 


19:  17-19.]  JOHN  XIX.  391 

Chapter  19  :  16  5-22. 
The  Nailing  of  Jesus  to  the  Cross. 

17  They  took  Jesus  therefore  :  and  he  went  out,  bear- 
ing the  cross  for  himself,  unto  the  place  called  The 
place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in  Hebrew  Golgotha: 

18  where  they  crucified  him,  and  with  him  two  others, 

19  on  either  side  one,  and  Jesus  in  the  midst.  And 
Pilate  wrote  a  title  also,  and  put  it  on  the  cross. 
And  there  was  written,  Jesus  of  Xazareth,  the 

The  Nailing  of  Jesus  to  thz  Cross,  vers.  16  i-22. 

Ver.  16  h.  They  therefore  received  Jesus.  'They,'  not  the 
soldiers,  but  the  chief  priests  of  ver.  15  and  the  Jews  of  ver.  14.  The 
verb  is  that  of  chap.  1 :  11 :  '  His  own  accepted  Him  not.'  Now  they 
did  'receive'  Him,  but  only  to  hurry  Him  to  a  cruel  death.  It  will 
be  observed  how  much  this  peculiar  force  of  the  verb  is  brought  out 
by  the  true  reading  of  the  verse,  which  omits  'and  led  him  away.' 

Ver.  17.  It  is  a  trace  of  the  accuracy  of  John  both  in  observing 
and  relating  facts,  that  he  is  the  only  Evangelist  who  mentions  the 
circumstance.  Nor  is  there  any  contradiction  betwixt  this  statement 
and  that  of  the  three  earlier  Gospels,  which  tells  us  that  they  com- 
pelled Simon  of  Cyrene  to  bear  the  cross  after  Jesus.  Jesus  had  borne 
it  at  first,  but  had  afterwards  been  compelled  through  fatigue  to  resign 
it.  On  'went  forth,'  comp.  on  chap.  18:  1.  The  place  was  called 
Golgotha,  'the  place  of  a  skull,'  probably  as  being  a  small  round  hil- 
lock. The  most  interesting  point  to  be  noticed  is  the  manner  in  which 
John  dwells  upon  the  meaning  of  the  name.  The  'place  of  a  skull'  is 
the  emblem  to  him  of  the  sad  transaction  about  to  be  completed  there. 
1  Ver.  18.  On  the  lingering  torture  of  death  by  crucifixion  it  is  un- 
necessary to  dwell.  We  learn  from  the  earlier  Gospels  that  the  two 
crucified  along  with  Jesus  were  robbers  (Matt.  27:  38;  Mark  15:  27). 
To  this  death  they  too  must  have  been  doomed  by  the  Eoman  power ; 
and  as  we  find  the  Roman  governor  writing  the  inscription  and  Ro- 
man soldiers  taking  part  in  the  crucifixion  and  dividing  the  spoils 
(comp.  ver.  23),  it  is  reasonable  to  think  that  it  was  also  a  Roman, 
not  a  Jewish,  arrangement  by  which  the  two  robbers  were  suspended 
on  either  side  of  Jesus.  If  so,  the  object  must  have  been  still  more  to 
bring  out  that  idea  of  His  royalty  with  which  Pilate  to  the  last  mocked 
the  Jews.  Not  only,  however,  did  he  mock  them  thus.  Following 
the  custom  of  the  time,  by  which  an  inscription  describin,g  the  crime 
for  which  a  malefactor  suffered  was  nailed  to  the  cross,  he  ordered 
this  to  be  done  now,  and  he  himself  dictated  the  words. 

Ver.  19.  The  object,  as  before,  was  to  do  despite  to  the  Jews,  not 
to  Jesus.  To  the  last  moment  their  tei-rible  crime  must,  under  the 
overruling  providence  of  God,  be  brought  home  to  them. 


392  JOHN  XIX.  [19:  20-22. 

20  King  of  the  Jews.  This  title  therefore  read  many 
of  the  Jews:^  for  the  place  where  Jesus  was  crucified 
was  nigh  to  the  city :  and  it  was  written  in  Hebrew, 

21  and  in  Latin,  and  in  Greek.  The  chief  priests  of  the 
Jews  therefore  said  to  Pilate,  Write  not.  The  King  of 
the  Jews ;  but,  that  he  said,  I  am  King  of  the  Jews. 

22  Pilate  answered.  What  I  have  written  I  have  written. 

1  Or,  for  the  place  of  the  city  where  Jesus  was  crucified  was  nigh  at  hand. 

Ver.  20.  The  language  in  which  this  proximity  of  Golgotha  to  the 
city  is  spoken  of  is  in  a  high  degree  remarkable :  not  '  the  place  was 
nigh  to  the  city,'  but  '  the  place  of  the  city  was  nigh.'  We  are  not  to 
imagine  that  by  these  words  the  Evangelist  means  to  say  that  the 
place  of  the  cruciiixion  was  within  the  city.  He  knew  well,  as  every 
one  knew,  that  it  was  '  without  the  gate.'  It  is  the  power  of  the  idea, 
not  perverting  the  fact,  but  leading  to  a  special  view  of  it,  that  meets 
us  here,  as  so  often  elsewhere.  The  place  outside  the  city,  but  really 
belonging  to  the  city,  is  viewed  only  in  this  latter  aspect,  as  *  the  place 
of  the  ciiy^  because  a  closer  connection  is  thus  established  between  the 
crime  committed  there  and  the  guilty  city  of  .Jerusalem. — And  it 
■was  -written  in  Hebrew^  and  Latin  and  Greek,  the  three  great 
languages  of  the  then  known  world. 

Ver.  21.  The  oifence  taken  might  have  been,  and  probably  was, 
expected  by  Pilate ;  but  the  mode  in  which  it  is  described  is  again 
highly  worthy  of  our  notice.  This  is  the  only  occasion  on  which  we 
meet  with  the  expression:  'the  chief  priests  of  the  Jews;'  and  as  it 
occurs  in  such  close  connection  with  the  words :  *  the  King  of  the 
Jews,'  we  can  hardly  doubt  that  the  latter  words  determined  the  form 
of  the  phrase  before  us.  On  the  one  side,  we  see  the  King  of  the 
Jews  defeated,  yet  victorious ;  suspended  on  the  cross,  yet  proclaimed 
to  be  what  He  is  in  all  the  great  languages  of  the  world ;  set  before 
us  as  universal  King.  On  the  other  side,  we  see  the  chief  priests  of 
the  Jews  victorious,  yet  defeated ;  their  object  apparently  accom- 
plished, yet  its  accomplishment  turned  to  their  own  shame,  and  their 
Victim's  glory. — Their  request  was  denied  in  the  most  curt  and  con- 
temptuous language. 

Ver.  22.  It  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  feeling  of  the  Evangelist 
that  in  all  this  the  finger  of  God  is  to  be  traced.  Those  who  refuse  to 
'  believe '  shall  yet  be  compelled  to  own  that  Jesus  is  King. 


19:23,24.]  JOHN  XIX.  393 

Chapter  19:  23-30. 
The  Crucifixion. 

23  The  soldiers  therefore,  "when  they  had  crucified 
Jesus,  took  his  garments,  and  made  four  parts,  to 
every  soldier  a  part;  and  also  the  ^coat:  now  the 
^  coat  was  without  seam,  woven  from  the  top  through- 

24  out.  They  said  therefore  one  to  another,  Let  us  not 
rend  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it,  whose  it  shall  be :  that 
the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  which  saith. 

They  parted  my  garments  among  them. 
And  upon  my  vesture  did  they  cast  lots. 

1  Or,  tunic. 

The  Crucifixion,  vers.  23-80. 
Contents. — This  paragraph  details  some  of  the  events  of  the  crucifixion,  but  not 
in  strict  historical  sequence  to  vers.  21  and  22.  The  conference  with  Pilate  there 
alluded  to,  following  as  it  did  the  reading  of  the  inscription  spoken  of  in  ver.  20, 
must  have  been  later  than  the  moment  when  the  division  of  the  raiment  of  Jesus  by 
the  soldiers  began.  We  can  hardly  doubt  that  this  latter  would  begin  as  soon  as  the 
cross  was  erected  and  Jesus  uailed  to  it. 

Ver.  23.  The  soldiers  are  no  longer  a  '  band.'  They  are  only  four 
in  number,  the  usual  number  of  a  Roman  guard  (comp.  Acts  12 :  4). 
AVhen  they  went  out  against  Jesus  to  the  garden  of  Gethsemane,  it 
was  in  force,  because  they  knew  not  how  far  He  might  really  be  the 
leader  in  a  popular  insurrection  against  the  government.  There  was 
evidently  no  occasion  for  such  a  fear  now,  and  their  number  therefore 
could  with  perfect  safety  be  reduced.  By  the  'garments'  here  spoken 
of,  we  are  to  understand  all  the  articles  of  clothing  belonging  to  Jesus 
with  the  exception  of  His  'vesture'  or  tunic:  viz..  His  sandals,  girdle, 
outer  robe,  head-dress,  etc.  These  they  divided  into  four  parts, 
giving  to  each  of  the  four  soldiers  a  part.  Another  course  had  to  be 
taken  with  the  tunic  or  under-garment.  By  it  we  are  without  doubt 
to  understand  the  long  garment  reaching  to  the  feet,  woven  so  as  to 
fit  closely  to  the  body  (not  pieced  or  sewed  together),  which  was  worn 
by  the  high  priest — the  garment  of  Rev.  1:13.  It  is  hardly  possible 
not  to.  feel  that  this  vestment  is  to' John  the  symbol  of  the  fact  that 
He  who  now  hangs  upon  the  cross  as  King  is  also  Priest  of  His  people. 
We  are  next  told  what  was  done  with  the  vestment. 

Ver.  24.  Both  in  the  dividing  and  in  the  casting  of  lots  the  Evan- 
gelist sees  Scripture  fultilled.— That  the  Scripture  might  be  ful- 
filled. The  quotation  is  from  Ps.  22  :  18,  and  is  accurately  repro- 
duced from  the  Septuagint. — These  things  therefore  the  soldiers 
did.     The  words  may  either  be  intended  to  emphasize  the  presence 


394  JOHN  XIX.  [19:25-28. 

25  These  things  therefore  the  soldiers  did.  But  there 
were  standing  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  his  mother,  and 
his    mother's   sister,  Mary  the  ivife  of  Clopas,  and 

26  Mary  Magdalene.  When  Jesus  therefore  saw  his 
mother,  and  the  disciple  standing  by,  whom  he  loved, 
he  saith  unto  his  mother.  Woman,  behold,  thy  son  ! 

27  Then  saith  he  to  the  disciple.  Behold,  thy  mother ! 
And  from  that  hour  the  disciple  took  her  unto  Iiis 
own  home. 

28  After  this  Jesus,  knowing  that  all  things  are  now 

of  God  in  the  scene,  as  He  made  the  Roman  soldiers  fulfil  His  Scrip- 
ture; or  may  simply  arise  out  of  the  intense  interest  with  which  John 
narrates  each  particular  of  these  eventful  hours. 

Ver.  25.  But  there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus  his  mother, 
and  his  mother's  sister,  Mary  the  wife  of  Clopas,  and  Mary 
Magdalene.  In  Matt.  27  :  55  we  are  told  of  'many  women  behold- 
ing from  afar.'  But  as  there  is  nothing  to  say  that  the  moment  was 
the  same  as  that  now  before  us,  the  supposed  contradiction  between 
'by  the  cross'  and  'from  afar'  disappears.  If  the  third  of  the  women 
here  mentioned  be  the  same  as  the  second,  we  shall  have  two  sisters 
of  the  same  name  in  one  family;  for  'sister'  cannot  mean  cousin. 
The  high  improbability  of  this  leads  to  the  supposition  that  we  have 
here /our  women,  in  two  groups  of  two  each.  This  view  is  confirmed 
by  the  fact  that  the  lists  of  apostles  are  in  like  manner  given  us  in 
groups  of  two,  and  by  what  does  not  seem  to  have  been  urged  as  an 
argument  upon  the  point,  that  the  four  women  seem  designedly  placed 
in  contrast  with  the  four  soldiers.  (Not  that  the  Evangelist  makes 
the  number  in  order  to  suit  his  purpose;  but  that  out  of  the  'many' 
spoken  of  by  Matthew,  he  selects  four  to  illustrate  the  historical  idea 
which  he  is  desirous  to  unfold.)  On  the  supposition  that  four  women 
are  mentioned,  it  appears  from  the  earlier  Gospels  that  the  second, 
here  unnamed,  was  Salome,  John's  own  mother  [and  that  John  and 
the  elder  James  were  cousins  of  Jesus].  Whether  Clopas  may  be 
identified  with  Cleopas  (Luke  24 :   18),  it  is  impossible  to  decide. 

Vers.  26,  27.  The  act  thus  recorded  has  been  variously  interpreted ; 
by  some  as  in  its  main  purpose  an  act  of  filial  cai-e  for  the  mother 
whose  soul  was  now  about  to  be  pierced  by  the  sword  spoken  of  in 
the  prophetic  word  of  Simeon  (Luke  2:  35)  ;  by  others,  as  a  formal 
renunciation  of  her,  that  He  may  surrender  Himself  wholly  to  the 
will  of  His  heavenly  Father.  It  is  in  the  fii'st  of  these  two  lights  that 
we  must  chiefly  regard  it.  Then  we  can  best  explain  the  words  of 
ver.  27,  which  are  evidently  the  Evangelist's  commentary  upon  what 
had  just  passed;  and  the  renunciation  spoken  of  had  really  taken 
place  at  chap.  2  :  4. 

Ver.  28.     It  is  a  question  whether  the  words,  that  the  scripture 


19:29,30.]  JOHN  XIX.  395 

fiDished,  that  the  scripture  might   be  accomplished, 

29  saith,  I  thirst.     There  Avas  set  there  a  vessel  full  of 
vinegar  :    so  they  put  a  sponge  full    of  the  vinegar 

30  upon  hyssop,  and  brought  it  to  his  mouth.     When 

might  be  accomplished,  are  to  be  connected  with  what  precedes 
or  with  what  follows.  In  favor  of  the  former  connection,  it  may  be 
said  (1)  It  is  John's  practice  to  point  out  the  fulfilment  of  Scripture 
after,  not  before,  the  event  fulfilling  it.  (2)  It  is  his  usual  practice 
to  notice  the  fulfilment  of  Scripture  in  what  is  done  to  Jesus,  rather 
than  in  what  is  done  by  Him  to  fulfil  it.  (8)  The  use  of  the  word 
'now'  seems  to  show  that  we  have  already  reached  a  complete  accom- 
plishment of  Scripture.  It  would  thus  appear  that  it  is  the  intention 
of  the  Evangelist  to  present  to  us  a  word  spoken  by  Jesus  at  a  moment 
when  He  knew  that  Scripture  had  been  already  fulfilled.  He  is  in 
the  position  of  One  whose  work  is  done,  and  for  whom  nothing  re- 
mains but  to  depart.  The  strong  counter-argument  is  that  everywhere 
else  in  this  Gospel  (see  chap.  2:  22)  'the  scripture'  denotes  some 
special  passage.  As,  however,  we  cannot  doubt  that  John  regarded 
the  utterance  here  recorded  as  fulfilling  Ps.  G9:  21  (see  2 :  17),  the 
difference  between  the  two  interpretations  is  less  than  it  at  first  ap- 
pears.— That  thirst  was  a  great  part  of  the  agony  of  the  cross,  we 
know ;  nor  in  all  probability  should  we  think  of  more,  were  it  not  the 
manner  of  John  to  relate  minor  incidents,  not  for  themselves  alone, 
but  for  the  sake  of  the  deeper  meaning  which  he  always  sees  to  be 
involved  in  them.  This  manner  of  the  Evangelist,  therefore,  compels 
us  to  ask  whether  there  may  not  be  a  deeper  meaning  in  this  cry  ? 
Let  us  turn  to  chajj.  4  :  7.  There,  immediately  after  mention  of  '  the 
sixth  hour,'  Jesus  says  to  the  woman  of  Samaria :  '  Give  me  to  drink.' 
Here,  in  close  contiguity  with  another  'sixth  hour'  (ver.  14),  He  says: 
'  I  thirst.'  But  we  have  already  seen  in  the  language  of  chap.  4 :  7 
the  longing  of  the  Redeemer  for  the  fruits  of  that  work  which  He  was 
then  accomplishing  in  toil  and  weariness;  and  we  are  thus  led  to 
think  of  something  of  the  same  kind  here.  It  was  not  merely  to  tem- 
per suffering  that  Jesus  cried,  but  it  was  for  refreshment  to  the  body 
symbolizing  a  deeper  refreshment  to  the  soul. — The  request  thus  made 
was  answered. 

Ver.  29.  It  is  possible  that  the  '  vinegar '  here  referred  to  may 
have  been  the  mixture  of  vinegar  and  water  used  by  the  Roman  sol- 
diers to  quench  their  thirst ;  or  it  may  even  have  been  a  vessel  of 
vinegar  itself,  of  which  lai'ge  quantities  were  used  at  the  Passover. 
The  'hyssop'  cannot  be  equivalent  to  the  'reed'  of  Matt.  27:  48  and 
Mark  15:  36,  for  the  hyssop  plant  was  of  too  low  and  bushy  a  habit 
to  supply  a  reed.  It  is  simply  a  small  bunch  of  hyssop,  which  was 
most  probably  attached  to  the  end  of  a  reed.  A  piece  of  sponge 
soaked  in  vinegar  was  fastened  to  the  hyssop  end  of  the  rod,  and  the 
draught  was  in  this  way  conveyed  to  the  lips  of  Jesus. 

Ver.  30.     It  is  not  said  that  Jesus  took  much  of  the  vinegar,  and 


396  JOHN  XIX.  [19:  31. 

Jesus  therefore  had  received  the  vinegar,  he  said,  It 
is  finished  :  and  he  bowed  his  head,  and  gave  up  his 
spirit. 

Chapter  19:  31-37. 
The  Body  of  Jesus  on  the  Cross. 

31  The  Jews  therefore,  because  it  was  the  Preparation, 
that  the  bodies  should  not  remain  on  the  cross  upon 
the  sabbath  (for  the  day  of  that  sabbath  was  a  high 

the  probability  is  that  He  did  not.  When  He  had  taken  it  He  ex- 
claimed. It  is  finished. — The  word  is  the  same  as  in  ver.  28,  but 
now  He  utters  what  there  He  'knew.'  It  is  the  shout  of  victory,  not 
the  cry  of  satisfaction  that  suffering  is  at  an  end.  Having  said  this, 
He  boTved  His  head  (which  had  been  previously  erect),  and  de- 
livered up  His  spirit, — The  verb  used  for  '  delivered  up '  is  pe- 
culiarly important.  The  choice  of  the  word  leaves  no  doubt  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Evangelist.  However  true  it  is  that  by  the  cruelty 
of  man  the  death  upon  the  cross  was  brought  about  as  by  its  natural 
cause,  there  was  something  deeper  and  more  solemn  in  it  of  which 
we  must  take  account.  It  was  His  own  free  will  to  die.  There  is  in 
Him  an  ever-present  life  and  power  and  choice  in  which  He,  even  at 
the  very  last  moment,  offers  Himself  as  a  sacrifice  (Heb.  9:  14).  He 
tells  us  Himself  of  His  life,  '  No  one  taketh  it  away  from  Me,  but  I 
lay  it  down  of  Myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  have 
power  to  take  it  again'  (10:  18) :  and  these  words  have  now  their  il- 
lustration. Compare  the  language  of  His  dying  cry,  recorded  by 
Luke  (23:  46):  'Father,  into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit.'  We 
forbear  to  enter  further  upon  the  physical  cause  of  the  death  thus  re- 
corded. It  is  impossible  not  to  feel  that  the  speculations  which  have 
been  indulged  in  on  this  subject  have  done  more  to  shock  Christian 
feeling  than  to  satisfy  a  legitimate  spirit  of  inquiry. 

The  Body  of  Jesus  on  the  Cross,  vers.  31-37. 

Contents. — Jesus  is  now  dead,  and  this  paragraph  relates  the  events  immediately 
following,  before  His  body  \*^8is  removed  from  the  cross. 

Ver.  31.  The  Jews  therefore,  because  it  was  Preparation- 
day. — It  has  already  been  remarked  (on  ver.  14)  that  the  word  here 
used  has  in  itself  the  double  meaning  of  '  preparation '  and  of  '  Fri- 
day.' Here,  without  the  article,  it  cannot  have  the  general  sense  of 
'the  preparation.'  Any  thought  of  preparation,  too,  lying  in  the 
word  must,  as  appears  clearly  from  the  following  clause,  be  connected 
with  the  Sabbath  and  not  with  the  Passover.  Had  the  latter  been 
thought  of,  it  would  surely  have  been  expressly  mentioned,  to  obviate 
the  mistake  to   which  the  use  of  a  well-understood  technical  term 


1*>:  32-34.]  JOHN  XIX.  397 

day),  asked  of  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken, 

32  and  that  they  might  be  taken  away.     The  soldiers 
therefore  came,  and  brake  the  legs  of  the  first,  and  of 

33  the  other  which  was  crucified  with   him  :   but  when 
they  came  to  Jesus,  and  saw  that  he  was  dead  already, 

34  they  brake  not  his  legs :  howbeit  one  of  the  soldiers 
with  a  spear  pierced  his  side,  and  straightway  there 

could  not  fail  to  give  rise.  These  words,  therefore,  so  far  from  sup- 
porting the  view  of  those  who  think  that  the  legal  Passover  had  not 
yet  been  celebrated,  tend  rather  in  the  opposite  direction.  Nor  is 
there  any  weight  in  the  argument  that,  had  the  term  been  used  as  we 
have  supposed,  the  Evangelist  would  have  explained  it  for  the  benefit 
of  his  Greek  readers.  It  was  the  Christian  name  for  Friday,  and  to 
Greek  Christians  it  could  suggest  nothing  else.  It  is  generally  al- 
lowed that  the  'Sabbath'  here  referred  to  is  termed  'high,'  because 
it  was  one  of  more  than  ordinary  solemnity,  deriving  its  import- 
ance on  this  occasion  from  the  fact  that  it  coincided  with  either 
the  first  or  the  second  day  (both  being  important)  of  the  Paschal  fes- 
tival. The  operation  of  breaking  the  legs,  though  not  sufficient  to 
cause  death,  would  naturally  hasten  it.  Under  any  circumstances  it 
prevented  the  escape  of  the  prisoner. 

Ver.  32.  The  bodies  had  been  suspended  on  the  cross  with  Jesus 
in  the  midst.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  soldiers,  approaching 
from  two  opposite  sides,  would  proceed  in  the  order  thus  mentioned : 
each  would  strike  his  blow  on  one  malefactor's  body  ;  then  they  would 
come  to  Jesus. 

Vers.  33,  34.  The  explanation  of  the  fact  here  recorded  has  always 
been  felt  to  be  attended  with  peculiar  difficulty.  The  idea  that  Jesus 
was  not  dead,  but  that  death  was  produced  by  the  spear-wound,  must 
at  once  be  set  aside.  It  is  inconsistent  with  the  distinct  language  of 
the  Evangelist  that  .Jesus  was  'dead  already,'  that  He  had  'delivered 
up '  His  spirit  into  the  hands  of  His  Father.  But  the  impossibility 
that  blood  and  water  should  issue  from  the  side  of  a  person  already 
dead  is  urged  on  physiological  grounds.  It  might  be  possible  that  we 
have  here  a  unique  appearance  based  upon  a  unique  situation.  If  it 
be  a  general  truth  that  the  moment  death  comes  corruption  begins, 
and  if,  notwithstanding,  Jesus  'saw  no  corruption,'  we  are  prepared 
to  expect  that  the  phenomena  accompanying  His  death  will  transcend 
our  experience;  and  it  may  well  be  that  we  have  such  phenomena  be- 
fore us  here.  Before  we  resort,  however,  to  such  an  explanation,  we 
ought  to  ask  whether,  when  we  take  all  the  circumstances  into  ac- 
count, it  is  really  necessary.  We  remark  therefore  that — (1)  There 
is  nothing  to  prevent  our  assuming  that  the  spear-wound  was  inflicted 
the  instant  after  death.  The  Evangelist  does  not  convey  the  slightest 
hint  to  us  that  any  interval  elapsed  between  the  two  events,  and  the 


JOHN  XIX.  [19:  35. 


35  came  out  blood  and  water.  And  he  that  hath  seen 
hath  borne  witness,  and  his  witness  is  true:  and  he 
knoweth  that  he  saith  true,  that  ye  also  may  believe. 

natui-e  of  death  by  crucifixion  is  such  as  to  call  us  to  think  of  the 
latest  possible  possible  moment  as  that  of  death.  '  Pilate  marvelled  if 
He  were  already  dead '  (Mark  15:  44).  (2)  In  conformity  with  the 
opinion  of  all  expositors,  the  region  of  the  heart  must  be  looked  upon 
as  that  penetrated  by  the  spear.  (8)  The  'blood  and  water'  derive 
all  their  importance  from  that  symbolical  meaning  which  they  have  in 
the  eyes  of  John.  The  circumstance  which  more  than  any  other  has 
led  inquirers  astray  in  judging  of  what  we  have  here  before  us  is, 
that  they  liave  supposed  it  to  be  the  aim  of  the  Evangelist  to  establish 
the  fact  that  Jesus  was  really  put  to  death.  But,  as  we  shall  see  on 
ver.  35,  this  is  certainly  not  the  point  before  him.  The  fact  now 
spoken  of  has  no  connection  whatever  with  j^'roof  that  death  had  taken 
place ;  and  it  is  mentioned  solely  for  the  sake  of  the  deeper  meaning 
which  it  involves.  (4)  These  things  being  so,  it  is  obviously  a  matter 
of  no  moment  what  tlie  quantity  of 'blood  and  water'  that  issued 
from  the  wound  may  have  been.  The  smallest  quantity  will  suffice; 
and  will  suggest  the  truth  intended  as  well  as  the  largest.  But  it  has 
never  been  pi'oved  that  such  a  small  quantity  might  not  issue  from'  a 
wound  thus  inflicted.  The  wound  would  be  a  large  one;  the  iron 
point  of  the  spear,  we  may  be  sure,  was  both  heavy  and  rough ;  and 
if  the  instant  after  death  the  pericardium  and  heart  were  pierced, 
there  is  no  difficulty  in  supposing  such  an  effusion  of  blood  and  of 
water,  or  serum,  as  could  not  fail  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  be- 
holder, and  suggest  to  his  mind  lessons  of  deep  spiritual  significance. 
If  this  be  so,  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  passage  may  be  retained. 
What  the  water  and  blood  symbolized  to  John  must  be  learned  from 
the  general  tenor  of  his  writings.  The  '  blood  '  brings  to  mind  the 
sacrifice  for  the  world's  sin  (1 :  29),  the  life  laid  down  for  the  life  of 
the  world  (6:  51;  10:  15),  the  cleansing  of  and  by  atonement  (1 
John  1:7;  Rev.  1:  5;  5:  9).  The  'water'  recalls  the  teaching  of 
3  :  5;  7  :  38;  13:  8,  10  ;  and  symbolizes  the  abiding  gift  of  the  Spirit 
of  holiness.  Thus  in  His  death  Jesus  is  presented  as  the  Source  of 
Life,  in  all  its  purity  and  s^piritual  power.  That  this  section  of  the 
Gospel  stands  in  closest  connection  with  1  John  5:  6  seems  to  us  be- 
yond doubt:  what  is  the  exact  nature  of  the  relation  between  the  pas- 
sage is  a  question  which  belongs  to  the  exposition  of  the  Epistle. 

Ver.  35.  It  is  of  himself  that  the  Evangelist  speaks  ;  compare  1 
John  1:  1,  2,  3.  The  witness  that  he  bears. is  'true.'  The  word  dif- 
fers from  that  which  is  used  in  the  second  member  of  this  verse  and 
in  21 :  24  ('We  know  that  his  witness  is  true').  It  designates  the 
testimony  as  genuine  and  real.  Not  only  is  it  truthful,  but  it  is  all  that 
testimony  can  be:  the  witness  will  not  deceive;  but — more  than  this 
• — in  regard  to  the  matter  which  he  here  attests,  he  cannot  have  been 
deceived  or  mistaken.     See  the  notes  on  4:  37;  8:  16.     The  object  of 


19:  36,37.]  JOHN  XIX.  399 

36  For  these   things   came  to  pass,  that   the   scripture 
might  be  fulfilled,  A  bone  of  him  shall  not  be  ^  broken. 

37  And  again  another  scripture  saith,  They  shall  look  on 
him  whom  they  pierced. 

1  Or,  crushed. 

this  solemn  testimony  is  that  they  may  'believe;'  not  simply  may  be- 
lieve the  facts,  but  may  rest  in  a  true  and  settled  faith  upon  Him  of 
whom  these  wonders  can  be  related.  The  significsnce  belonging  to 
the  facts  thus  solemnly  commemorated  is  now  further  illustrated 
(vers.  36,  37) :  they  are  the  fulfilment  of  the  Divine  counsels  expressed 
in  Scripture.  ' 

Vers.  36,  37.  The  passages  referred  to  in  the  first  of  these  quota-' 
tions  seem  tc  be  Ex.  12 :  46  and  Num.  9 :  12,  rather  than  Ps.  34:  20. 
It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  last  of  these  is  founded  upon  the  first 
two.  Great  importance  was  attached  by  the  Jews  to  the  precept  that 
no  bone  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  should  be  broken.  God's  counsel,  typi- 
fied in  this,  is  now  fulfilled  in  the  true  Paschal  Lamb  (see  chap.  1 :  29). 
In  the  second  passage  referred  to  (Zech.  12:  10),  the  Evangelist  sets 
aside  what  is  universally  allowed  to  be  the  false  translation  of  the 
Septuagint,  and  translates  from  the  Hebrew.  It  is  not  impossible 
that  in  this  passage  also  there  may  be  a  distant  allusion  to  the  rites  of 
the  Passover;  for  the  bitterness  of  the  'mourning'  alluded  to  seems 
to  be  founded  on  the  mourning  of  Egypt  for  its  first-born.  But, 
whether  this  be  so  or  not,  the  allusion  in  the  Prophet  to  Him  who  is 
to  come  as  the  manifestation  of  God  to  His  people  is  distinct.  The 
true  reading  of  the  passage  in  Zechariah  is :  '  They  shall  look  on  Me 
whom  they  pierced,'  where  the  word  'Me'  is  to  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  Sender  is  identified  with  the  Sent,  the  Lord  with  His 
prophet.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  words  translated  '  pierced ' 
in  vers.  34  and  37  are  different,  from  which  we  may  conclude  that 
the  Evangelist  does  not  rest  in  the  mere  detail  of  the  piercing,  but 
dwells  upon  the  wider  thought,  that  Israel  rejected  and  crucified  its 
Lord.  Such,  however,  had  been  God's  counsel;  and  thus  spoken, 
not  only  by  the  law,  but  by  the  Prophets  (comp.  1 :  45),  this  counsel 
is  now  fulfilled  in  Jesus. — One  remark  more  may  be  permitted  on  the 
peculiar  light  in  which  the  whole  of  this  remarkable  scene  seems  to 
present  itself  to  the  eye  of  the  Evangelist,  Jesus  is  obviously  here, 
as  indeed  He  has  been  throughout  the  Gospel,  the  true  Paschal  Lamb 
(1 :  29  and  chap.  6).  Yet  He  is  that  Lamb  looked  at  not  simply  in  the 
moment  of  dying,  but  as,  in  dying  (in  that  dying  which  has  been 
going  on  throughout  His  whole  suffering  life,  and  only  culminates 
now),  the  true  substance  of  His  people's  Paschal  feast,  their  nourish- 
ment, their  life.  The  conduct  of  the  Jews  to  Jesus  as  He  hangs  upon 
the  cross  thus  assumes  the  form  of  an  inverted,  a  contorted,  Passover. 
They  had  that  morning  lost  their  legal  Passover — had  lost  even  the 
shadow,  because  they  rejected  and  despised  the  substance,     *Yet,' 


400  JOHN  XIX.  [19 !  38,  39. 

Chapter  19:  38-42. 
The  Burial  of  Jesus. 

38  And  after  these  things  Joseph  of  Arimathsea,  being 
a  disciple  of  Jesus,  but  secretly  for  fear  of  the  Jews, 
asked  of  Pilate  that  he  might  take  away  the  body  of 
Jesus :  and  Pilate  gave  him  leave.     He  came  there- 

39  fore,  and  took  away  his  body.  And  there  came  also 
Nicodemus,  he  who  at  the  first  came  to  him  by  night, 
bringing  a  ^  mixture  of  myrrh  and  aloes,  about  a  hun- 

1  Some  ancient  authorities  read  roll. 

says  the  Evangelist,  '  they  found  a  Passover.  Let  us  follow  them  to 
the  cross.  There  let  us  see  the  righteous  dealings,  the  deserved  irony, 
of  the  Almighty,  as  He  makes  their  cruel  mockings  of  the  true  Paschal 
Lamb  shape  them  into  a  Passover  of  judgment,  of  added  sin  and  deep- 
ened shame,'  If  the  passage  be  looked  at  in  this  light — the  only 
light,  as  it  seems  to  us,  which  at  once  explains  the  general  structure 
of  the  section  and  the  peculiar  expressions  employed — it  will  be  found 
to  be  full  of  the  most  important  consequences  alike  for  the  biblical 
critic  and  for  the  dogmatic  theologian. 

The  Burial  of  Jesus,  vers.  38-42. 

Contents— The  paragraph  before  us  records  the  committal  of  the  body  of  Jesus  to 
the  tomb. 

Ver.  88.  It  is  easy  to  understand  that  Pilate  should  at  once  grant 
the  permission  asked.  He  had  no  interest  in  keeping  the  body ;  and 
by  giving  it  up  to  disciples  of  Jesus,  he  would  have  a  fresh  opportu- 
nity of  at  once  doing  despite  to,  and  exasperating,  the  Jews.  It  seems 
not  unlikely  that  in  the  fact  that  disciples  receive  the  body  of  the 
Lord,  the  Evangelist  beholds  a  token  of  the  care  with  which  it  was 
watched  over  by  His  Father  in  Heaven.  Joseph,  however,  was  not 
alone. 

Ver.  39.  The  quantity  of  spices  thus  brought  by  Nicodemus  is  cer- 
tainly remarkable;  and  hence  some  have  shrunk  fi-om  taking  the 
words  in  their  literal  sense,  holding  that  'a  hundred  pound'  (espe- 
cially as  here  qualified  by  'about')  may  be  an  expression  merely  de- 
noting a  great  quantity.  Others,  following  the  suggestion  of  2  Chron. 
16:  14,  have  supposed  that,  when  part  of  the  mixture  of  spices  had 
been  spread  on  the  linen  cloths  in  which  the  body  was  to  be  wrapped, 
the  remainder  was  destined  for  '  a  burning.'  Whether  this  be  accepted 
or  not,  the  passage  referred  to  is  interesting  as  bringing  before  us  the 
burial  of  a  King..  The  distinct  identification  of  this  Nicodemus  with 
the  ruler  who  came  to  Jesus  by  night  (chap.  3)  is  significant.     The 


19:40,41.]  JOHN  XIX.  401 

40  dred  pound  weight.  So  they  took  the  body  of  Jesus, 
and  bound  it  in  linen  cloths  with  the  spices,  as  the 

41  custom  of  the  Jews  is  to  bury.  Now  in  the  place 
where  he  was  crucified  there  was  a  garden  ;  and  in  the 
garden  a  new  tomb  w^herein  was  never  man  yet  laid. 

humiliation  of  the  Kins;  of  Israel  (3:3;  12:  13),  so  far  from  discour- 
aging, does  but  strengthen  the  once  weak  faith  of  the  true  disciple ; 
and  in  contrast  with  (and — may  we  not  add — in  expression  of  shame 
and  penitence  for)  timorous  hesitation,  we  read  of  the  lavish  offering 
of  a  love  open  and  avowed.  The  declaration  of  chap.  12 :  32  begins 
to  receive  its  fulfilment. 

Ver.  40  It  is  hardly  possible  to  suppose  that  the  fact  mentioned 
in  the  last  clause  is  without  a  purpose.  The  words  '  even  as '  would 
of  themselves  seem  to  indicate  as  much  as  this.  Let  us  remember 
then  the  importance  which  was  attached  by  all  to  a  splendid  burial 
(comp.  Luke  16  :  22) ;  let  us  bear  in  mind  that  by  'the  Jews'  we  are 
here  to  understand  not  the  nation,  but  rather  that  portion  of  the  na- 
tion which  best  exemplified  its  narrowness  and  bigotry,  and  which  in- 
cluded its  more  respectable  class ;  lastly,  let  us  think  of  the  worldly 
circumstances  of  Joseph,  and  in  all  probability  of  Nicodemus ;  and 
we  shall  feel  that  the  Evangelist  desires  to  call  our  attention  to  the 
striking  fact,  that  notwithstanding  the  ignominious  death  to  which 
Jesus  had  been  put,  and  through  the  rage  of  His  enemies  appeared  to 
have  so  completely  triumphed,  there  were  yet  those  who  prepared  for 
Him  as  honored  and  as  costly  a  burial  as  could  await  any  '  Jew.' 
That  the  word  'burial'  is  used  to  describe  the  wrapping  of  the  body 
in  the  linen  cloths  may  arise  from  the  Evangelist's  desire  to  mention 
a  circumstance  Avhich  brings  strongly  into  relief  the  condition  in  which 
these  cloths  were  afterwards  found  (20:  7).  The  body  having  thus 
been  prepared  for  burial,  the  actual  entombment  alone  remains  to  be 
spoken  of. 

Ver.  41.  Nothing  further  is  told  by  John  of  the  'garden'  and  of 
the  'sepulchre'  thus  referred  to.  We  learn  only  from  the  other 
Evangelists  that  they  belonged  to  Joseph,  and  that  the  sepulchre,  as  is  . 
common  round  Jerusalem,  was  hewn  in  the  rock.  It  is  not  easy  to 
say  whether  the  Evangelist,  in  referring  to  the  particulars  he  men- 
tions, may  have  desired  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  reality  of  the  re- 
surrection. They  certainly  tend  to  do  so,  because  they  help  to  show 
that,  when  the  grave  was  found  empty,  none  but  Jesus  could  have 
risen  from  it.  It  seems  more  probable,  however,  that  they  are  men- 
tioned with  the  view  of  bringing  out  the  honor  paid  to  Jesus  in  His 
death.  He  was  laid,  not  in  the  place  of  common  burial,  but  in  a  gar- 
den, and  in  a  new  sepulchre,  where  no  one  had  been  laid  before  Him. 
Finally,  we  are  informed  why  they  laid  Jesus  there  in  the  condition 
in  which  He  was. 
26 


402  JOHN  XX.  [20:  1. 

42  There  then  because  of  the  Jews'  Preparation,  (for  the 
tomb  was  nigh  at  hand)  they  laid  Jesus. 

Chapter  20':  1-10. 
The  Empty  Grave, 
1      Now  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  cometh  Mary 

Ver.  42.  These  words  can  hardly  mean  that  Jesus  was  laid  in 
this  tomb  simply  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  owing  to  the  nearness 
of  the  Sabbath.  The  meaning  must  rather  be  that,  owing  to  this 
nearness,  the  embalming  had  been  more  readily  left  in  that  unfin- 
ished state  of  which  we  read  in  the  other  Evangelists.  The  prox- 
imity of  the  tomb  to  the  city  has  little  bearing  on  the  former,  it 
has  a  distinct  bearing  on  the  latter  point.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  say  more  on  the  question  of  'the  Preparation-day  of  the 
Jews.'  There  is  only  one  simple  and  natural  meaning  of  the  words. 
It  was  now  Friday  afternoon;  the  Sabbath  was  at  hand;  the  hours 
of  that  part  of  the  Friday  devoted  to  preparation  for  the  Sabbath 
had  set  in.  It  was  desirable,  therefore,  that  the  work  of  embalm- 
ing the  body  should  for  the  present  be  brought  to  a  close.  The 
reader  cannot  fail  to  be  struck  with  the  touching  pathos  lent  to  the 
whole  sentence  by  making  it  close  with  the  words  '  laid  they  Jesus.' 

Tlie  Empty  Grave,  vers.  1-10. 

Contents. — The  victory  of  Jesus  over  His  enemies,  in  the  midst  of  apparent  defeat, 
is  still  the  subject  before  us.  The  preceding  chapter  had  closed  with  the  statement 
that  He  was  laid  in  the  tomb :  when  the  narrative  of  chap.  20  begins,  the  tomb  is 
empty.  The  great  event  of  the  Resurrection  had  already  taken  place.  The  victory 
of  Jesus  over  the  world  and  death  had  been  consummated,  for  at  the  very  instant 
when  their  attack  was  fiercest  He  had  escaped  their  hands.  The  question  may  in- 
deed be  asked,  whether  chap.  20,  as  containing  an  account  of  the  risen  Saviour,  ought 
not  to  constitute  a  separate  section  of  the  Gospel.  But  the  reply  is  easy.  The  death 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  always  accompany  one  another.  They  are  complementary 
parts  of  one  whole,  each  impossible  without  the  other.  It  must  be  distinctly  kept  in 
view  that  the  leading  thought  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  not  that  of  defeat  in  sufferiug 
followed  by  victory,  but  of  triumph  through  and  over  suffering.  The  first  paragraph 
of  chap.  20,  extending  to  the  close  of  ver.,10,  may  best  be  described  as  Preparation  for 
the  risen  Saviour. 

Ver.  1.  Few  parts  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  illustrate  better  than 
these  words  the  principle  of  selection  upon  which  it  is  composed. 
They  mention  Mary  Magdalene  alone;  and  yet  we  learn  from 
her  own  words  in  ver.  2,  'toe  know,'  that  she  could  not  have  been 
alone, — that  she  formed  (as  indeed  we  are  expressly  told  by  the 
other  Evangelists)  one  of  a  group  of  women  who  came  on  the  morn- 
ing of  the  first  day  of  the  week  to  finish  the  embalming  of  the  body 


20:  2.]  JOHN  XX.  403 

Magdalene  early,  while  it  was  yet  dark,  unto  the 
tomb,  and  seeth  the  stone  taken  away  from  the  tomb. 
2  She  runneth  therefore,  and  cometh  to  Simon  Peter, 
and  to  the  other  disciple,  whom  Jesus  loved,  and  saith 
unto  them.  They  have  taken  away  the  Lord  out  of 
the  tomb,  and  we  know  not  where   they  have   laid 

of  Jesus.  Again,  we  here  read  of  'the  stone  taken  away  from  the 
sepulchre,'  though  no  mention  had  been  made  of  this  stone  in  the 
previous  narrative.  It  is  obvious  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  we  have 
to  deal  not  so  much  with  events  of  full  historical  detail  as  with 
events  selected  on  account  of  their  bearing  upon  the  idea  which  the 
Evangelist  wishes  to  illustrate.  In  the  present  instance  that  idea 
is  not  the  mere  fact  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus,  but  the  nature  of 
His  post-resurrection  state.  With  this  His  appearance  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene is  closely  associated ;  and  hence  the  Evangelist,  omitting  all 
mention  of  the  other  women,  concerns  himself  with  her  alone.  Of 
Mary,  then,  we  are  told  that  she  came  to  the  sepulchre  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  'early,'  and  'when  it  was  yet  dark.'  Similar  ex- 
pressions are  found  in  the  other  Gospels  :  thus  Luke  speaks  of  '  early ' 
(literally  '  deep ' )  '  dawn,'  and  Mark  (ver.  2)  records  that  women  came 
to  the  sepulchre  'very  early.'  The  only  dilficulty  that  presents  itself 
here  is  occasioned  by  words  which  follow  in  the  same  verse  of  Mark's 
Gospel,  which  state  that  the  sun  had  risen.  The  discussion  of  this 
difficulty  does  not  belong  to  this  place,  and  we  must  content  ourselves 
with  mentioning  three  solutions  which  have  been  proposed.  (1)  That 
the  woi'ds  of  Mark  16 :  2  are  intended  only  as  a  general  indication  of 
time,  at  or  about  sunrise,  the  rays  of  dawn  being  in  the  sky,  but  the 
measure  of  light  still  small.  (2)  That,  though  the  sun  had  risen,  yet 
haze  or  cloud  obscured  its  light.  (3)  That  John's  reference  to  the 
darkness  strictly  belongs  to  the  time  when  Mary  set  forth,  not  to  the 
time  of  her  arrival,  as  indeed  the  words  might  be  rendered  '  Mary  is 
coming  to  the  sepulchre:'  compare  ver.  3,  where  we  read  that  Peter 
and  John  '  were  coming  to,'  i.  e.  they  came  towards  the  tomb.  It  is 
easy  to  understand  that  the  writer  of  the  last  words  in  chap.  13:  30 
would  in  thought  naturally  dwell  upon  the  outward  darkness  as  sym- 
bolical of  the  mental  state  of  Mary  and  her  fellow-disciples.  The 
stone  which  had  been  fitted  into  the  door  of  the  sepulchre  had  been 
taken  away;  and,  without  observing  the  particulars  which  are  re- 
corded below  (vers.  6,  7),  Mary  hastens  to  tell  what  she  has  seen. 

Ver.  2.  That  the  Lord  is  risen  does  not  enter  into  her  thoughts: 
she  can  but  imagine  that  enemies  have  stolen  away  the  body  so  pre- 
cious alike  in  her  eyes  and  in  those  of  her  fellow-disciples,  and  she 
hastens  to  tell  the  tale  to  those  who  would  feel  with  her  most  deeply 
and  would  be  most  able  to  help  in  the  sad  extremity.  The  statement 
of  Mary  produces  its  immediate  effect  upon  the  disciples. 


404  JOHN  XX.  [20:  3-7. 

3  him.     Peter  therefore  went  forth,  and  the  other  dis- 

4  ciple,  and  they  went  toward  the  tomb.     And  they  ran 
both  together:  and  the  other  disciple  outran  Peter, 

5  and  came  first  to  the  tomb ;  and   stooping  and  look- 
ing in  he  seeth  the  linen  cloths  lying ;  yet  entered  he 

6  not  in.     Simon  Peter  therefore  also  cometh,  following 
him,  and  entered  into  the  tomb ;    and  he  beholdeth 

7  the  linen  cloths  lying,  and  the  napkin,  that  was  upon 
his  head,  not  lying  with  the  linen  cloths,  but  roiled 

Ver  3.  The  word  rendered  '  went  forth '  is  so  often  used  in  this 
Gospel  in  regard  to  the  most  solemn  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  im- 
plying a  Divine  mission,  the  accomplishment  of  a  Divine  purpose,  that 
we  may  well  doubt  wheiher  the  Evangelist  does  not  here  employ  the 
word  in  the  same  pregnant  sense.  It  is  possible  also  that  there  is  de- 
sign in  the  manner  in  which  the  names  of  the  two  apostles  are  intro- 
duced :  not  '  Peter  and  the  other  disciple  went  forth,'  but  '  Peter  went 
forth,  and  the  other  disciple.'  The  other  examples  of  this  construc- 
tion in  the  Foui'th  Gospel  tend  to  show  that  here  John  intends  to  set 
forth  Peter  as  the  main  person  in  the  narrative :  thus  the  whole 
ground  is  cut  away  from  those  who  hold  that  the  design  of  this  sec- 
tion is  to  bring  '  the  other  disciple'  into  peculiar  pr)minence. 

Ver.  4.  It  is  extremely  probable  that  John  was  the  younger  and 
thus  also  the  more  active  of  the  two.  The  same  supposition  throws 
light  on  the  next  verse. 

Ver  5.  And  stooping  down,  and  looking  in,  he  seeth 
the  linen  cloths  lying  ;  yet  -went  he  not  in.  A  feeling  of 
awe  and  mystery  in  all  probability  possessed  him.  He  was  afraid  to 
enter.     It  was  not  so  with  Peter. 

Vers.  6,  7.  Peter,  ever  bold  and  daring,  is  less  overcome  by  awe 
than  his  companion.  He  goes  into  the  sepHlchre,  and  when  within 
sees  not  only  that  the  linen  cloths  are  lying  there,  but  also,  what 
John  had  not  observed  (ver.  5),  that  the  covering  placed  upon  the 
head  of  Jesus  had  been  carefully  (for  this  is  clearly  implied  in  the 
word)  rolled  up,  and  laid  in  a  place  by  itself, — in  all  likelihood 
where  the  head  had  lain.  By  the  mention  of  these  circumstances, 
the  Evangelist  appears  to  indicate  the  calm  and  orderly  manner  in 
which  Jesus  had  left  the  sepulchre.  They  were  inconsistent  with 
the  idea,  either  of  a  hasty  flight,  or  of  a  violent  removal  of  the  body : 
and  it  is  probable  that  John  would  hint  at  the  dawning  conscious- 
ness of  this  in  Peter's  mind  by  changing  the  verb  'seeth,'  used  in 
his  own  case,  into  '  beholdeth '  in  the  case  of  his  companion.  The 
efi"ect  produced  upon  John  by  Peter's  entrance  into  the  sepulchre 
was  what  might  have  been  expected.  He  takes  courage,  and  also 
enters. 


20:  8-10.]  JOHN  XX.  405 

8  up  in  a  place  by  itself.     Then  entered  in  therefore 
the  other  disciple  also,  which  came  first  to  the  torab, 

9  and  he  saw,  and  believed.     For  as  yet  they  knew  not 
the  scripture,  that  he  must  rise  again  from  the  dead. 

10  So  the  disciples  went  away  again  unto   their   own 
home. 

Yer.  8.  It  is  certainly  not  a  belief  of  the  statement  of  Mary  that 
is  expressed  in  this  last  word.  As  John  stood  gazing  on  the  signs 
which  bore  their  silent  witness  that  the  body  of  Jesus  had  not  been 
taken  away  by  violent  hands,  the  truth  revealed  itself  to  him, — that 
Jesus  had  of  Himself  left  the  tomb.  But  even  more  than  this  is  pro- 
bably intended  by  the  word  'believed.'  To  receive  the  truth  of  the 
Resurrection  was  to  be  led  to  a  deeper  and  more  real  faith  in  Jesus 
Himself.  The  uncertainties,  doubts,  and  difficulties  occasioned  by  the 
events  of  the  days  just  passed  disappeared  from  John's  mind.  He 
'believed'  in  .lesus  as  being  what  He  truly  was,  the  Son  of  God,  the 
Saviour  of  man. 

Yer,  9.  The  connection  between  this  and  the  preceding  verse  is 
readily  perceived: — 'He  sow  and  believed,' — sight  was  needed  to 
evoke  this  faith, — for  not  even  yet  had  they  learnt  that  thus  it  was 
'written  that  the  Christ  should  suffer  and  rise  again  from  the  dead' 
fLuke  2-4 :  46).  It  may  be  doubted  whether  self-reproach  is  to  be 
round  in  this  statement, — to  the  extent,  at  least,  that  is  commonly  sup- 
posed. The  words  seem  rather  to  flow  from  the  conviction  which  has 
so  strong  a  hold  of  the  Evangelist,  that  only  in  the  presence  of  actual 
•experience  do  the  power  and  meaning  of  the  Divine  Word  come  forth. 
The  fact  was  needed  in  order  to  illustrate  and  explain  the  scripture  ; 
and  then  that  faith  which  has  been  resting  on  the  inward  perception 
of  the  glory  of  Jesus  receives  confirmation  from  the  discovery  that  the 
truth  received  was  long  ago  made  known  by  God  as  a  part  of  His  own 
counsel.  As  in  all  other  places  (unless  19 :  28  be  an  exception,  see 
note  there)  John  uses  '  the  scripture'  in  the  sense  of  a  particular  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  (see  chap.  2  :  22),  we  are  here  led  to  think  of  Ps. 
16:  10  as  probably  being  before  his  mind.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  this  was  '  the  scripture '  to  which  Peter  first  made  appeal  as  a 
prophecy  of  the  Resurrection  of  our  Lord  (Acts  2:  27). 

Yer.  10.  We  are  not  told  why  or  in  what  frame  of  mind  they  thus 
returned  to  their  own  homes.  One  thing  is  clear  :  they  believed  that 
Jesus  was  risen,  and  that  it  was  vain  to  search  for  Him  in  the  tomb. 


406  JOHN  XX.  [20:  11-13. 

Chapter  20  :  11-18. 
Jesus  risen. 

11  But  Mary  was  standing  without  at  the  tomb  weep- 
ing :  so,  as  slie  wept,  she  stooped  and  looked  into  the 

12  tomb ;  and  she  beholdeth  two  angels  in  white  sitting, 
one  at  the  head,  and  one  at  the  feet,  where  the  body 

13  of  Jesus  had  lain.     And  they  say  unto  her,  Woman^ 

Jesus  risen,  vers.  11-18. 

Contents. — The  paragraph  now  before  us  presents  an  advance  upon  that  last  con- 
Bidc3red.  There  we  had  only  preparation  for  the  risen  Jesus;  here  we  have  Jesus 
risen.  There  all  was  negative  :  Jesus  was  not  in  the  tomb,  and  the  inference  was 
that  lie  was  risen.  Here  all  is  positive.  The  risen  One  appears  to  Mary,  proclaiming 
Himself,  and  sends  a  message  to  His  disciples. 

'  Ver.  11.  But  Mary  stood  -without  at  the  sepulchre  creep- 
ing. Peter  and  John  had  returned  to  their  homes.  Mary  had  fol- 
lowed them  when  they  first  ran  to  the  sepulchre ;  but  (probably  in 
consequence  of  their  eager  haste)  she  had  not  reached  it  before  they 
departed.  Nothing  at  least  is  said  of  her  having  met  them  and  been 
addressed  by  them.  She  stands  there  with  no  thought  of  a  resurrec- 
tion in  her  mind,  but  believing  only  that  the  body  has  been  taken 
away,  and  therefore  weeping  with  loud  lamentation  (comp.  on  chap. 
11:  34,  35). 

Ver.  12.  In  each  of  the  accounts  of  the  Resurrection  an  angelic 
appearance  is  recorded — in  every  case  an  appearance  to  the  women 
■who  came  to  the  tomb ;  by  Peter  and  John  no  angels  had  been  seen 
(vers.  5,  6).  The  'white'  garments  are  the  symbol  of  purity  and 
glory;  see  the  references  in  the  mai-gin,  and  also  Rev.  3:  4,  5  ;  6:11; 
19:  14,  etc.  That  one  of  the  angels  was  'at  the  head'  and  the  other 
*at  the  feet  where  the  body  of  Jesus  had  lain,'  is  to  be  regarded  as 
expressive  of  the  fact  that  the  body  was  wholly  under  the  guardian- 
ship of  Heaven.  This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  upon  any  discussion  of 
the  general  credibility  of  the  angelic  appearances  recorded  in  Scrip- 
ture. They  are  too  often  and  too  circumstantially  spoken  of  to  permit 
us  to  resolve  them  into  mere  figures  of  speech :  nor  can  we  have  any 
difi&culty  in  believing  that  in  the  great  universe  of  God  there  should 
be  such  an  order  of  beings  as  that  described  by  the  term  '  angels.' 
If,  however,  they  may  exist,  their  manifestation  of  themselves  must 
be  regarded  as  also  possible  ;  and  the  manner  of  the  manifestation— 
their  appearing  to  some  and  not  to  others,  their  appearing  suddenly 
and  then  as  suddenly  disappearing — is  to  be  looked  at  as  dependent 
upon  laws  of  which  we  can  say  nothing,  because  we  have  ourselves  no 
practical  experience  of  them. 

Ver.  13.     Mary's  reply  betrays  neither  consternation  nor  even  sur- 


20 :  14-15.]  JOHN  XX.  407 

why  weepest  thou?     She  saith  unto  them,  Because 
they  have  taken  away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not 

14  where  they  have  laid  him.  When  she  had  thus  said, 
she  turned  herself  back,  and  beholdeth  Jesus  stand- 

15  iug,  and  knew  not  that  it  was  Jesus.  Jesus  saith 
unto  her,  Woman,  why  weepest  thou?  whom  seekest 
thou  ?     She,  supposing  him  to  be  the  gardener,  saith 

prise :  her  excitement  is  such  that  the  wonderful  ceases  to  be  wonder- 
ful to  her.  Her  words  are  exactly  the  same  as  those  spoken  by  her 
in  ver.  2,  except  that,  as  she  is  now  expressing  simply  her  own  feel- 
ings, and  not  those  of  companions,  the  utterance  becomes  more  ten- 
der :  thus,  for  '  the  Lord '  and  '  we  know,'  we  here  read  '  my  Lord,' 
'/know.'  She  thus  comes  before  us  as  more  fully  prepared  for  re- 
ceiving a  manifestation  of  the  risen  Saviour ;  and  that  no  answer  of 
the  angels  is  recorded,  may  be  regarded  as  a  token  on  the  part  of  the 
Evangelist  that  to  such  a  faith  Jesus  will  reveal  Himself  directly,  and 
without  the  interposition  of  any  other. 

Ver.  14.  Mary  has  answered  the  inquiry  of  the  angels ;  and,  sat- 
isfied that  the  Lord  is  not  in  the  sepulchre,  she  turns  round  to  see  if 
information  regarding  Him  can  be  obtained  from  any  other  source. 
Could  we  think  that  the  morning  was  still  dark,  it  might  be  possible 
to  trace  Mary's  non-recognition  of  Jesus  to  that  cause ;  but,  if  light 
was  already  dawning  when  she  came  first  to  the  sepulchre,  day  must 
by  this  time  have  fully  broken.  That  she  did  not  know  Jesus  must, 
therefore,  have  proceeded  from  some  other  cause.  This  could  not  be 
the  outward  glory  of  His  appearance,  or  she  would  not  have  supposed 
Him  to  be  the  gardener  (ver.  15).  Nor  does  it  seem  desirable  to  re- 
sort to  the  explanation,  that  glorified  corporeity  has  the  power  of 
making  itself  visible  or  invisible,  or  of  assuming  different  forms  of 
manifestation  at  its  pleasure.  Much  may  be  attributed  to  Mary's 
total  want  of  preparation  for  the  fact.  The  idea  that  Jesus  had  risen 
from  the  grave  had  not  yet  dawned  upon  her :  the  form  now  in  her 
presence  could  not  be  His :  no  supposition  lay  so  near  as  that  it  was 
the  gardener  who  had  drawn  near.  More,  however,  must  be  said ; 
and  the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  diflBculty  is  to  be  found  in  Luke 
24:  16  (see  also  21:  4).  Her  'eyes  were  holden'  that  she  should  not 
discern  her  Lord.  She  was  not  yet  ready  for  any  such  recognition  as 
might  correspond  to  the  new  stage  of  existence  upon  which  He  had 
entered.  She  would  have  seen  the  liuman  friend — Jesus  as  He  had 
been,  not  as  He  now  was.  Some  further  training,  therefore,  is  still 
needed,  and  then  the  glorious  revelation  shall  be  given. 

Ver.  15.  The  object  of  the  questions  seems  to  be,  to  recall  Mary  to 
herself  and  to  awaken  more  deliberate  thought.  She  is  confounded 
by  all  that  has  happened,  overwhelmed  by  her  emotions,  and  hence 
unable  to  judge  justly  of  what  she  is  to  see.     The  questioning  and 


408  JOHN  XX.  [20 :  16,  17. 

unto  him,  Sir,  if  thou  hast  borne  him  hence,  tell  me 
where  thou  hast  laid  him,  and  I  will  take  him  away. 

16  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Mary.     She  turneth  herself,  and 
saith  unto  him  in  Hebrew,  Rabboni ;  which  is  to  say, 

17  ^  Master.     Jesus  saith  to  her,  ^  Touch  me  not ;  for  I 

1  Or,  Teacher.  2  Or,  Talce  not  hold  on  me. 

answering  bring  her  back  to  calmness  and  self-possession. — So  much 
is  Mary  absorbed  in  her  own  thoughts,  and  so  completely  is  her  mind 
filled  with  one  great  subject,  that  she  imagines  that  every  one  must  at 
once  enter  into  her  feelings.  Accordingly  she  does  not  even  mention 
the  name  of  Jesus,  but  asks  whether  the  gardener  has  borne  '  Him' 
away.  She  seeks  but  to  learn  where  He  is,  that  (for  no  recollection 
of  woman's  weakness  presents  itself  to  hinder  the  thought)  she  may 
take  Him  to  another  tomb.  As  she  speaks,  her  fiiith  and  love  are 
drawn  forth  in  increasing  measure,  and  the  moment  is  at  hand  when 
they  shall  be  satisfied. 

Ver.  16.  Jesus  saith  unto  her,  Mary.  That  single  word  com- 
pletes her  present  training.  Nor  is  this  wonderful.  She  is  calmer 
now;  the  intervening  conversation  has  produced  this  eff'ect.  Then 
again  we  cannot  doubt  that  there  would  be  more  of  the  old  tenderness 
of  Jesus  in  the  pronunciation  of  her  name  than  in  the  words  as  yet 
spoken  to  her.  The  very  mark,  indeed,  of  the  relation  between  Jesus 
and  His  people,  when  that  relation  is  conceived  of  in  its  most  tender 
form,  is  that  *  He  calleth  His  own  sheep  by  name'  (10:  3).  We  are 
not  to  imagine  that  it  is  only  the  sound  of  the  voice  that  is  now  recog- 
nized by  Mary.  By  the  name,  by  the  tone  in  which  the  name  is 
uttered,  a  whole  flood  of  recollections  is  brought  up.  All  the  deepest 
and  most  solemc  impressions  that  had  been  produced  upon  her  by 
her  former  intercourse  with  Jesus  are  re-awakened  in  power.  She 
recalls  not  merely  what  was  most  human,  but  what  was  most  Divine 
in  Him.  Yet  it  would  seem,  from  the  epithet  that  she  immediately 
applies  to  our  Lord,  that  she  thinks  of  Him  as  standing  to  her  in  some 
at  least  of  the  old  relations.  It  is  not  strange  that  it  should  be  so ; 
any  experience  that  she  had  had  of  resurrections  through  the  power 
of  Christ  had  been  of  resurrections  to  the  former  conditions  of  life. 
But  now  she  is  prepared  for  more,  and  therefore  she  shall  be  taught 
to  know  Jesus  fully. — She  turneth  herself,  and  saith  unto  him 
in  Hebrew,  Rabboni,  which  is  to  say,  Teacher.  The  title 
thus  used  by  Mazy  is  probably  i\Q  provincial  form  Rabban  or  Babbi, 
and  it  is  found  in  the  New  Testament  only  here,  and  in  the  Gospel  of 
Mark  (chap.  10:  51),  noted,  as  is  well  known,  for  its  use  of  expres- 
sions from  the  common  tongue.  It  means  properly  '  My  Master,' 
and  is  thus  expressive  of  love  and  devotedness  as  well  as  of  respect 
and  reverence.  As  Mary  uttered  the  word,  she  must  have  endeavored  to 
fall  down  at  the  feet  of  her  Lord,  embracing  them  f  comp.  Matt.  28  :  9). 

Ver.  17.     Many  different  interpretations  have  been  given  of  these 


20 !  17.]  JOHN  XX.  409 

am  not  yet  ascended  unto  the  Father :  but  go  unto 
my  brethren,  and  say  to  them,  I  ascend  unto  my 
Father  and  your  Father,  and  my  God  and  your  God. 

words,  some  coarse,  others  either  requiring  the  introduction  into  the 
text  of  thoughts  that  are  not  there,  or  too  far-fetched  and  mystical. — 
The  meaning  has  been  made  more  difficult  by  a  want  of  sufficient  at- 
tention to  the  force  of  the  words  '  Touch  me  not ;'  for  these  words  do 
not  express  the  touch  of  a  moment  only,  but  a  touch  that  continues 
for  a  time.  They  are  equivalent  to  '  Keep  not  thy  touch  upon  me,' 
'Handle  me  not,'  •Cling  not  to  me.'  Mary  would  have  held  her 
Lord  fast  with  the  grasp  of  earthly  friendship  and  love.  She  needed 
to  be  taught  that  the  season  for  such  bodily  touching  of  the  Word  of 
Life  was  past.  But,  as  it  passed,  the  disciples  were  not  to  be  left 
desolate:  the  season  for  another  touching — deeper,  because  spiritual 
— began.  Jesus  would  return  to  His  Father,  and  would  send  forth 
His  Spirit  to  dwell  with  His  disciples.  Then  they  should  see  Him, 
hear  Him,  handle  Him,  touch  Him,  in  the  only  way  in  which  He  can 
now  be  seen  and  heard  and  handled  and  touched.  In  a  true  and 
living  faith  they  shall  embrace  Him  with  a  touch  never  more  to  be 
withdrawn  or  interrupted.  Hence  the  important  word  'brethren.' 
Those  to  whom  the  message  is  sent  are  more  than  disciples ;  they  are 
'  brethren  '  of  their  Lord.  His  Father  is  their  Father,  and  His  God 
their  God.  They  are  entering  upon  a  state  of  spiritual  fellowship 
with  the  Father  similar  to  His  own  ;  and  that  fellowship  is  to  be  the 
distinguishing  characteristic  of  their  new  condition.  Thus  the  mes- 
sa'ge  sent  by  Mary  to  the  '  brethren'  of  the  Lord  is  not  a  mere  mes- 
sage that  He  has  risen  from  the  grave.  The  thought  of  His  resurrec- 
tion is  rather  embraced  only  as  a  part  of  a  new  and  permanent  state 
of  things  which  has  come  in.  Even  here,  however,  it  is  important  to 
observe  that  the  distinction  between  our  Lord  and  His  disciples  ia 
still  carefully  preserved.  Jesus  does  not  say  '  Our  Father,'  but  '  JIi/ 
Father  and  yowr  Father;'  so  that  the  significance  of  'brethren'  lies 
in  this,  that  the  word  is  used  in  the  very  verse  which  proclaims  so 
clearly  the  difi"erence  between  Him  and  them. — The  words  '  the  Father,' 
in  the  first  part  of  the  Lord's  address  to  Mary,  ought  not  to  pass  un- 
noticed. The  reader  may  compare  what  has  been  said  on  chap.  8:  27. 
He  will  then  see  that  the  expression  'the  Father'  here  combines  in 
one  thought  all  that  is  implied  in  the  four  designations  that  follow : 
'  My  Father,'  '  Your  Father,'  '  My  God,'  'Your  God.'  —  'I  ascend'  is 
not  to  be  understood  (as  some  have  maintained)  of  an  immediate 
ascension,  inconsistent  alike  with  the  forty  days  of  Acts  1 :  3  and  with 
the  subsequent  narratives  of  this  very  Gospel.  Yet  neither  are  we  to 
understand  it  as  if  it  meant  '  I  will  ascend '  at  some  future  day.  The 
use  of  the  present  is  to  be  explained  by  the  consideration  that  the 
Resurrection  of  our  Lord  was  really  the  beginning  of  His  Ascension. 
At  that  point  earth  ceased  to  be  the  Saviour's  home  as  it  had  been  ; 
and  He  Himself  was  no  longer  in  it  what  He  had  been.     Thus  it 


410  JOHN  XX.  [20 :  18, 19. 

18  Mary  Magdalene  cometh  and  telleth  the  disciples,  I 
have  seen  the  Lord ;  and  how  that  he  had  said  these 
things  unto  her. 

Chapter  20:  19-23. 
The  First  Manifestation  of  Himself  by  the  Risen  Lord, 

19  When  therefore  it  was  evening,  on  that  day,  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  and  when  the  doors  were  shut 

might  be  said  by  Him  :  '  I  ascend.'  '  My  ascent  is  begun,  and  shall 
be  soon  completed ;  then  shall  I  enter  into  My  glory,  and  the  Spirit 
shall  be  bestowed  in  all  His  fulness.' — The  contrast  between  the  rela- 
tion in  which  Jesus  places  Himself  to  Mary  in  this  verse,  and  to 
Thomas  in  ver.  27  (comp.  Luke  24:  39),  has  often  been  dwelt  upon  as 
if  it  afforded  evidence  of  the  untrustworthy  nature  of  the  whole  nar- 
rative before  us.  Yet  a  moment's  consideration  will  satisfy  any  one 
that  the  difference  in  our  Lord's  object  on  these  two  occasions  neces- 
sai'ily  involved  a  difference  in  His  treatment  of  those  whom  He  would 
lead  to  a  full  knowledge  of  Himself.  Thomas  has  to  be  convinced 
that  He  who  stands  before  him  is  indeed  his  Lord  and  Master  risen 
from  the  grave,  Mary  believes  that  Jesus  is  risen,  but  needs  further 
instruction  as  to  His  present  state.  To  have  treated  the  latter  in  the 
same  manner  as  the  former  would  have  been  to  make  Mary  stop  short 
of  the  very  point  to  which  Jesus  would  conduct  her.  To  have  treated 
the  former  as  the  latter  would  have  been  to  unfold  to  Thomas  the 
mystery  of  the  resurrection-state  of  Jesus,  while  he  had  not  yet  ac- 
cepted the  fact  that  the  resurrection  had  taken  place. 

Ver.  18.  Mai-y  has  now  recognized  her  Lord.  We  have  seen  her 
longing,  with  weeping  eyes  and  breaking  heart,  for  the  Friend  whom 
she  had  loved  on  earth.  She  was  prepared  for  more,  and  more  was 
given.  Her  Master  was  revealed  to  her,  not  as  the  human  Friend 
alone,  but  in  all  that  awakened  at  the  same  time  her  reverence  and 
awe,  in  all  that  reminded  her  of  the  Divine  in  Him.  Thus  she  was 
ready  for  another  step,  and  she  was  led  that  step  forward.  She  saw 
before  her  the  risen  and  glorified  Lord ;  and  she  could  look  forward 
to  the  future,  inviting  at  the  same  time  the  disciples  to  join  her  in  the 
prospect,  as  a  future  in  which  He  who  is  forever  with  the  Father 
should  be  forever,  by  His  Spirit,  with  her  and  them,  weeping  changed 
into  joy,  and  defeat  into  victory.  With  a  message  of  this  kind,  she 
goes  to  the  disciples,  and  they  are  prepared  for  what  is  now  to  follow. 

The   First  3fanifestation  of  Himself  hy  the   Risen  Lord,  vers.    19-23. 

Contents. — Mary  Magdalene  has  carried  to  the  disciples  the  tidings  with  which 
she  was  charged.    We  have  now  the  first  appearance  to  them  of  the  Risen  Lord. 

Ver.  19.     The  message  sent  by  the  Lord  to  His  disciples  through 


20:  19.]  JOHN  XX.  411 

where  the  disciples  were,  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  Jesus 
came  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto  them, 

Mary  Magdalene  was,  '  I  ascend  unto  the  Father,'  In  other  words, 
it  was  an  intimation  to  them  that  that  glorification  had  begun  whose 
distinguishing  feature  would  be  the  bestowal  of  the  Spirit  upon  the 
members  of  Christ's  body.  In  this  thought  lies  the  connection  be- 
tween the  last  narrative  and  that  now  before  us,  as  well  as  the  special 
point  of  view  from  which  the  Evangelist  desires  us  to  look  at  the  mani- 
festation of  the  Risen  One  which  he  is  about  to  relate.  In  this  also 
we  see  the  diiference  of  aim  between  John  and  Luke,  in  what  is  uni- 
versally allowed  to  be  the  record  of  the  same  scene  (Luke  2-1 :  36-43). 
Luke  would  prove  to  us  the  reality  of  the  Resurrection  body,  and 
would  show  that  Jesus  is  substantially  the*  same  as  He  had  been : 
John  would  show  us  that,  while  He  is  substantially  the  same,  yet  it  is 
Jesus  Jilled  with  the  Spirit  yrhom  we  behold.  Hence  the  structure  of 
John's  narrative,  in  which  it  will  be  observed  that  the  second  'Peace 
be  unto  you '  (ver.  21)  takes  up  again  the  same  expression  in  ver.  19 
(comp.  on  chap.  13:  3),  and  that  ver.  20  is  in  a  certain  sense  paren- 
thetical. This  aim  of  our  Evangelist  also  explains  the  stress  which  is 
laid  upon  the  fact  that  this  manifestation  of  Jesus  took  place  'when 
the  doors  had  been  shut.'  That  we  are  to  see  something  miraculous 
in  this  is  clear,  alike  from  the  repetition  of  the  statement  below  (ver. 
26),  and  from  the  whole  tone  and  bearing  of  the  narrative.  Any 
idea,  therefore,  of  the  withdrawal  of  the  bolts  of  the  doors  must  be  at 
once  dismissed.  It  is  impossible  to  do  justice  to  the  passage  unless  we 
admit  that,  at  a  moment  when  the  doors  were  shut,  and  when  no  one 
could  enter  through  them  in  the  ordinary  way,  Jesus  suddenly  stood 
in  the  midst  of  the  disciples.  But  this  is  all  that  we  have  any  right 
to  say.  The  travesty  of  the  whole  scene  presented  by  those  who  have 
ridiculed  the  idea  that  a  body  with  '  flesh  and  bones '  (Luke  24 :  39) 
should  penetrate  through  the  substance  of  the  wood,  finds  no  counte- 
nance in  the  words  with  which  we  have  to  deal.  Such  a  thought  is 
not  present  to  the  mind  of  John.  He  dwells  himself,  and  he  would 
have  us  dwell,  upon  the  simple  circumstance  that,  at  an  instant  when 
an  ordinary  human  body  could  not  have  entered  the  apartment  be- 
cause the  doors  were  shut,  the  glorified  Jesus  '  came  and  stood  in  the 
midst.'  Thus  looked  at,  the  passage  sets  before  us  what  is  no  doubt 
miraculous,  what  is  at  variance  with  our  present  knowledge  of  the 
properties  of  a  material  frame,  but  at  the  same  time  nothing  unworthy 
of  the  solemnity  of  the  hour.  As  at  Emmaus  Jesus  suddenly  disap- 
peared from  those  whose  eyes  were  opened  and  who  knew  Him,  so 
here  He  appears  with  equal  suddenness  to  those  who  are  ready  to  re- 
cognize Him.  How  He  thus  appeared  through  the  physical  obstacles 
presented  by  a  room  closed  on  every  side  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to 
say.  The  properties  of  matter  spiritualized  and  glorified  are  entirely 
unknown  to  us  from  any  experience  of  our  own,  nor  is  light  thrown 
upon  them  here  fui'ther  than  this,— that  Jesus,  in  His  glorified  hu- 


412  JOHN  XX.  [20:  20. 

20  Peace  he  unto  you.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  he 
shewed  unto  them  his  hands  and  his  side.  The  dis- 
ciples therefore  were  glad,  when  they  saw  the  Lord. 

manity,  had  the  power  of  being  present  when  He  pleased,  without  re- 
ference to  the  ordinary  laws  which  control  the  movements  of  men.  In 
this  absolute  subjection  of  the  body  to  the  spirit,  John  sees  proof  and 
illustration  of  the  fact  that  in  the  person  of  Jesus  dualism  has  disap- 
peared, and  that  the  perfect  unity  of  body  and  spirit  has  been  reached. 
The  old  struggle  between  the  material  and  the  spiritual,  between  the 
limited  and  the  unlimited,  has  been  brought  to  an  end :  the  spiritual 
and  unlimited  have  absolute  control.  As  '  the  first  Adam  became  a 
living  soul,'  so  'the  second  Adam  became  a  life-giving  Spirit'  (1  Cor. 
15:  45),  and  such  life  of  the  Spirit  the  disciples  shall  immediately  re- 
ceive.— The  salutation  of  the  Saviour  when  He  manifested  Himself 
was  '  Peace  be  unto  you  ;'  and  the  meaning  and  force  of  the  salutation 
are  deepened  by  the  contrast  with  the  '  fear  of  the  Jews '  spoken  of 
immediately  before.  As  in  chap.  14:  27  (see  commentary),  this  is  the 
salutation  of  a  departing  Master,  not  of  a  dying  Father.  Amidst  the 
troubles  of  the  world  upon  which  the  disciples  are  about  to  enter,  and 
when  there  is  no  help  from  man.  .Jesus  is  at  hand  to  speak  peace:  'In 
the  world'  they  'have  tribulation,'  but  in  Him  'peace'  (chap.  16: 
33). — It  will  be  observed  that  the  Evangelist  seems  carefully  to  dis- 
tinguish between  '  the  disciples  '  (vers.  18,  19)  and  'the  Twelve'  (ver. 
24).  Hence  we  should  naturally  conclude  that  this  manifestation  of 
the  Risen  Lord  was  not  limited  to  the  apostles  ;  and  Luke  24 :  18 
shows  that  this  conclusion  is  correct. 

Ver.  20.  And  -when  he  had  said  this,  he  showed  unto 
them  both  his  hands  and  his  side.  If  the  words  of  Luke  24: 
40  are  genuine,  the  feet  wei-e  also  shown ;  but  the  genuineness  of  that 
passage  is  too  doubtful  to  permit  us  to  argue  from  it  with  confidence. 
In  whatever  respects  the  glorified  body  of  Jesus  differed  from  what  it 
had  been  before  His  death,  there  was  at  least  enough  of  resemblance 
to  make  identification  not  only  possible  but  the  necessary  result  of 
careful  observation ;  and  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  very  Evangelist 
who  has  given  us  the  most  striking  conception  of  the  change  which  it 
had  undergone,  is  the  one  by  whom  the  identification  is  also  most 
clearly  established.  We  shall  err,  however,  if  we  think  that  the  only 
object  which  Jesus  had  in  view  in  showing  His  hands  and  His  side 
was  identification.  He  would  also  connect  His  present  gloi'ification 
with  His  past  sufferings.  Even  now,  amidst  His  glory,  His  people 
must  not  forget  that  Hia  path  to  it  had  been  the  Cross.  He  is  the 
Lamb  that  was  '  slain'  (comp.  Rev.  5  :  6, 12). — The  disciples  there- 
fore rejoiced  when  they  saw  the  Lord.  These  words  describe 
the  elFect  of  the  manifestation  upon  the  disciples  (comp.  chap.  16 : 
22).  They  who  thus  rejoice  when  they  see  Him  are  prepared  for  fur- 
ther manifestations  of  His  grace. 


20:  21.]  JOHN  XX.  413 

21  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them  again,  Peace  he   unto 
you  :  as  the  Father  hath  sent  nie,  even  so   send  I 

Yer.  21.  The  words  are  exactly  the  same  as  before  (ver.  19),  but 
they  must  have  gone  home  with  a  deeper  power  to  the  hearts  of  the 
disciples,  who  now  understood  more  fully  the  Person  from  whom  they 
came.  They  prepare  the  way  for  the  great  commission  to  be  given, — 
a  commission  which,  amidst  all  the  trials  it  would  bring  with  it  from 
the  world,  the  disciples  are  to  execute  in  peace. — Even  as  the 
Father  hath  sent  me,  I  also  send  you.  The  words  'even  as' 
bring  out  the  close  correspondence  between  the  mission  of  Jesus  Him- 
self and  that  upon  which  He  sends  His  disciples.  In  both  cases  it 
was  a  ndssion  of  self-denying  love  to  men  ;  in  both  one  of  labor,  suf- 
fering, and  death,  followed  by  glory  ;  in  both  we  have  the  thought  of 
willing  service  imposed  by  an  authority  that  is  supreme.  We  have 
already  met  with  words  expressing  a  very  similar  thought  in  our 
Lord's  intercessory  prayer:  'Even  as  Thou  didst  send  Me  into  the 
•world,  I  also  sent  them  into  the  world'  (17:  18).  But  there  is  one 
important  point  of  difference,  which  an  English  translation  fails  to  ex- 
hibit. In  chap.  17  the  Greek  word  for  'sent'  is  the  same  in  both 
members  of  the  sentence ;  in  the  verse  before  us  it  is  otherwise.  Here 
the  former  clause  ('Even  as  the  Father  hath  sent  Me')  contains  the 
word  of  chap.  17  :  18  [npostello),  but  in  the  latter  clause  ('  I  also  send 
you')  the  verb  is  different  (pempo).  The  distinction  in  meaning 
seems  to  be  that  the  second  word  expresses  misifwn,  the  first  more  pro- 
perly commission.  When  the  first  is  used,  our  thoughts  turn  to  a  spe- 
cial embassy,  and  special  instructions  which  the  ambassador  receives ; 
the  second  brings  into  view  rather  the  authority  of  the  sender  and  the 
obedience  of  the  sent.  Both  words,  therefore,  may  be  used  either  of 
our  Lord  or  of  His  disciples.  Thus  in  more  than  twenty  verses  of 
this  Gospel  Jesus  applies  the  second  word  to  Himself  (see  especially 
chap.  4:  34,  'My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me'); 
whilst  in  such  passages  as  6:  29;  17:  3;  8,  18.  21,  23,  25,  we  find 
instead  the  more  expressive  word.  In  5:  36,  37,  and  again  in  7  :  28, 
29,  the  two  are  brought  together  as  they  are  here  ;  and  the  appropri- 
ateness of  each  word  in  its  place  may  readily  be  seen.  In  6:  37 
and  7  :  28  our  thought  must  rest  chiefly  on  the  Sender  ;  but  in  5 :  36 
and  7  :  29  on  the  commission  which  the  Father  has  given  to  His  Son. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  word  apostello  is  used  by  Jesus  in  regard  to 
His  disciples  in  chap.  4  :  38  ('  I  sent  you  to  reap  ')  as  well  as  in  chap. 
17:  18;  and  is  indeed  the  word  from  which  the  distinctive  name  of 
the  Twelve,  '  apostles,'  is  derived.  Various  thoughts  are  suggested 
here  by  the  marked  and  sudden  transition  from  one  word  to  the  other. 
It  may  be  said  with  truth  that,  as  17  :  18  has  its  primai-y  application 
to  apostles,  the  word  which  designates  their  special  office  was  natu- 
rally chosen  there;  here,  on  the  contrary  (see  note  on  ver.  19),  the 
disciples  in  general  are  addressed, — the  disciples  who  are  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  Church  of  Christ.     Again,  the  word  by  which 


414  JOHN  XX.  [20 :  22. 

22  you.     And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on 
them,  and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the  ^Holy 

1  Or,  Holy  Spirit. 

Jesus  here  expresses  the  mission  of  His  disciples  (pempo),  is  one  which 
brings  into  relief  their  separation  from  His  bodily  presence :  formerly 
they  were  continually  at  His  side,  but  now  they  must  be  dismissed 
^  for  their  labor  throughout  the  world  (Matt.  28:  19).  One  other 
^  thought  it  is  impossible  to  overlook.  There  is  peculiar  dignity  in  the 
avoidance  on  the  part  of  the  Risen  Lord  of  that  form  of  speech  which 
would  seem  to  identity  two  relations  which  (however  closely  they 
may  sometimes  be  associated)  are  essentially  distinct.  No  human 
disciples  can  really  bear  the  commission  of  Jesus  as  Jesus  bears  that 
which  He  has  received  from  the  Father  (comp.  note  on  ver.  17).  By 
design,  therefore,  the  Lord  here,  reserving  for  Himself  the  higher 
word,  speaks  of  the  disciples  as  His  envoys  to  the  world.  The  com- 
mission which  they  hold  from  Him  receives  separate  mention  in  a  later 
verse  (ver.  23). 

Ver.  22.  Not  only  did  the  Risen  Lord  thus  send  His  disciples  on 
their  mission  to  the  world,  He  gave  them  also  the  preparation  which 
should  enable  them  to  fulfil  their  trust.  The  literal  and  correct  ren- 
dering of  the  original  Greek  is  not  *  Receive  the  Holy  Spirit,'  but 
*  Receive  Holy  Spirit ;'  the  difference  being,  as  was  pointed  out  on 
7 :  39,  that  by  the  latter  expression  we  are  to  understand  not  the  per- 
sonal Holy  Ghost,  but  His  power  or  influence  over  the  hearts  of  men. 
It  was  in  the  power  of  Holy  Spirit  that  Jesus  had  entered  upon  His 
own  ministry  (Luke  4:1,  where  the  same  expression  is  used  as  here) ; 
with  the  like  preparation  shall  His  Church  enter  upon  the  work  to 
which  she  is  called.  The  gift  now  bestowed  is,  therefore,  not  simply 
symbolical,  but  real ;  at  that  moment  the  Spirit  was  given.  All  this 
is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  words  of  7 :  39,  because  at  this  moment 
the  glorification  of  Jesus  has  begun  (see  note  on  ver.  17).  The  gift, 
too,  was  imparted  not  to  apostles  only,  but  to  all  the  disciples  present; 
it  is  a  gift  not  for  the  ministry  alone,  but  for  the  whole  Church  of 
Christ.  If  so.  the  interesting  question  immediately  arises,  What  is 
the  relation  of  the  gift  spoken  of  here  to  that  bestowed  at  Pentecost? 
The  answer  would  seem  to  be  that  here  the  gift  relates  to  the  inner 
life  of  the  disciples,  there  to  the  more  outward  equipment  for  their 
work ;  here  to  the  enlightenment  and  quickening  of  their  own  souls, 
there  to  preparation  for  producing  an  eflect  on  others.  Perhaps  we 
may  seek  an  illustration  (to  be  applied,  as  always,  with  reserve)  from 
the  life  of  the  Saviour  Himself.  As  His  public  ministry  began  when 
the  Holy  Spirit  descended  on  Him  at  His  baptism,  so  did  His  apostles 
receive  their  full  commission  and  power  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  But 
as  before  His  baptism  the  Holy  Spirit  had  rested  on  Him  continually, 
so  now,  before  Pentecost,  the  same  holy  influence  is  bestowed  on  His 
disciples,  preparing  them  for  the  day  of  final  consecration  to  their 
work.     It  has,  indeed,  often  been  maintained  that  we  have  before  us 


20:23.]  JOHN  XX.  415 

23  Ghost :  whose  soever  sins  ve  forgive,  they  are  for- 
given unto  them;  whose  soever  sins  ye  retain,  thev 
are  retained. 

a  promise,  and  not  a  present  gift.  But  such  cannot  be  the  meaning 
of  the  language  which  is  here  used.  Even  were  it  granted  that  the 
word  '  Receive '  might  be  understood  as  an  assurance  of  a  future  gift, 
the  action  which  accompanies  the  word  must  imply  much  more  than 
this.  *  He  breathed  on  them  ;'  this  surely  was  the  outward  symbol  of 
an  actual  impartation — of  His  breathing  into  them  (see  Gen.  2 :  7, 
where  the  same  word  is  used)  the  power  and  influence  of  which  He 
spoke.  And  yet  it  is  true  that  this  gift  was  both  present  (actual)  and 
also  future  (a  promise).  As  present,  it  brought  with  it  the  quicken- 
ing of  spiritual  life;  as  future,  it  included  in  itself  all  that  Pentecost 
gave.  The  former  thought  is  important  in  relation  to  the  development 
of  the  disciples ;  the  latter  in  its  connection  with  ver.  23,  and  espe- 
cially in  its  presentation  of  the  Redeemer  as  Himself  the  Giver  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  (16:  26). 

Yer.  23.  If  ye  shaU  have  remitted  the  sins  of  any,  they 
have  been  remitted  unto  them;  if  ye  retain  the  sins  of  any, 
they  have  bsen  retained.  We  regard  two  points  as  established 
from  what  has  been  already  said:  1.  The  words  of  this  verse  are  not 
addressed  to  apostles  alone;  2.  Though  conjoined  with  a  present  im- 
partation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  belong  really  to  the  days  when  the 
disciples  shall  have  fully  entered  on  their  work  as  representatives  of 
their  Lord  and  His  witnesses  in  the  world.  This  verse  and  the  last 
stand  in  the  closest  possible  connection:  only  when  the  Holy  Spirit 
has  been  received,  can  such  a  commission  as  this  be  executed.  With- 
out unduly  entering  on  controverted  ground,  let  us  seek  to  collect  the 
meaning  which  the  words  (which  we  have  thought  it  desirable  to  ren- 
der with  unusual  closeness)  must  necessarily  bear.  It  is  clear  that 
two  remissions  of  sin  are  spoken  of — two  which  agree  in  one.  Where 
Christ's  servants  'have  remitted  the  sins  of  any,'  these  sins  'have 
been  remitted  unto  them' — remitted  absolutely,  ?.  e.  remitted  by  God, 
for  '  who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  only?'  (Mark  2:  7).  But  as  we 
know  that  the  Divine  forgiveness  is  suspended  on  certain  conditions — 
p"nitence  and  faith — it  follows  that  the  remission  granted  by  Christ's 
disciples  must  (since  it  agrees  with  the  Divine  remission)  be  suspended 
on  the  same  conditions.  Either,  therefore,  the  disciples  must  possess 
unfailing  insight  into  man's  heart  (such  as  in  certain  cases  was  granted 
to  an  apostle,  see  Acts  5:  3),  or  the  remission  which  they  proclaim 
must  be  conditionally  proclaimed.  No  one  can  maintain  the  former 
alternative.  It  follows,  then,  that  what  our  Lord  here  commits  to  His 
disciples,  to  His  Church,  is  the  right  authoritatively  to  declare,  in  His 
name,  that  there  is  forgiveness  for  man's  sin,  and  on  what  conditions 
tbp  sin  will  be  forgiven.  Nor  does  there  seem  to  be  ground  for  think- 
ing *Jiat  we  have  here  a  special  application  by  one  individual,  whether 


416  JOHN  XX.  [20 :  24. 

Chapter  20:  24-29. 
Ttie  Second  Manifesta-ion  of  Himself  by  the  Risen  Lord, 
24      But  Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve,  called  ^Didymus, 

1  That  is,  Twin. 

minister  or  not,  to  another  of  the  remission  (or  retention)  of  sin 
spoken  of.  The  use  of  'any'  in  the  plural  number  appears  to  be  in- 
consistent with  such  a  view.  It  is  not  a  direct  address  by  one  person 
to  another  that  is  spoken  of:  *I  declare  that  thi/  sins  are  thus  author- 
itatively remitted  or  retained.'  It  is  a  proclamation  from  one  collect- 
ive body  to  another — from  the  Church  to  the  world.  The  mission  of 
the  Church  is  to  announce  to  the  world  her  own  existence  in  her 
Lord,  as  a  company  of  forgiven  men,  and  to  invite  the  world  to  join 
her.  Let  the  world  comply  with  the  invitation,  it  shall  enjoy  forgive- 
ness in  the  company  of  the  forgiven ;  let  it  refuse  the  invitation,  it 
can  only  have  its  sins  retained  in  the  company  of  those  who  have 
been  'judged  already'  (comp.  3 :  18).  Here,  as  in  all  else,  the  Church 
only  witnesses  to  what  her  Lord  does.  But  as  it  is  by  her  life,  even 
more  than  by  tcords,  that  she  witnesses,  so  it  is  by  accepting  or  reject- 
ing her  life  that  her  witness  is  accepted  or  rejected;  and  thus  it  is 
that  by  communion  with  her  the  blessing  is  enjoyed,  that  by  separa- 
tion from  her  it  is  forfeited.  It  ought  particularly  to  be  noticed  that 
of  the  two  remissions  or  retentions  of  sin  spoken  of  in  the  words  be- 
fore us,  the  Divine  act,  although  the  last  to  be  mentioned,  is  the  first 
in  thought — '■have  been  remitted,'  ^have  been  retained.' 

The  Second  Manifestation  of  Himself  by  the  Risen  Lord,  vers.  24-29. 

Contents. — ^We  have  here  a  second  appearance  of  Jesus  to  the  disciples,  distin- 
guished from  that  coming  immediately  before,  inasmuch  as  it  seems  especially  in- 
tended to  set  forth  the  blessedness  of  those  who  believe  without  seeing.  Ver.  29 
evidently  forms  the  climax  of  the  whole,  and  presents  to  us  the  point  of  view  from 
which  we  are  to  look  at  this  narrative  in  contrast  with  the  preceding  one.  How  fit- 
ting was  it  that  thus,  at  the  moment  when  the  Gospel  message  was  about  to  be  carried 
into  all  lands,  and  when  faith  in  an  unseen  Saviour  Avas  the  only  faith  that  could  be 
preached,  a  ^jecial  blessing  should  be  pronounced  on  those  who  should  not  see,  but 
yet  should  believe !  When  we  regard  the  paragraph  now  before  us  in  this  light,  a 
remarkable  correspondence  presents  itself  between  the  three  appeirances  of  the  Risen 
Saviour  in  this  chapter  and  the  three  parts  into  which  the  intercessory  prayer  of 
chap.  17  divides  itself.  The  first  appearance  corresponds  to  the  first  part  of  the 
prayer,  for  in  each  we  see  Jesus  Himself  The  second  corresponds  to  the  second  part, 
for  in  each  we  see  Jesus  in  relation  to  His  immediate  disciples.  The  third  again  cor- 
responds to  the  third  i>art,  for  in  each  we  see  Jesus  in  relation  to  all  who  should  yet 
believe  in  Him. 

Ver.  24.  On  the  object  of  thus  interpreting  the  name  Thomas,  see 
on  11 :  16.    It  is  impossible  to  think  that  the  Evangelist  translates  th«, 


20:  25,26.]  JOHN  XX.  417 

25  was  not  with  them  when  Jesus  came.  The  other  dis- 
ciples therefore  said  unto  him,  We  have  seen  the  Lord. 
But  he  said  unto  them,  Except  I  shall  see  in  his 
hands  the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my  finger  into 
the  print  of  the  nails,  and  put  my  hand  into  his  side. 
I  will  not  believe. 

26  And  after  eight  days  again  his  disciples  were  with- 

word  for  the  mere  purpose  of  mentioning  that  Thomas  had  a  Greek  as 
well  as  an  Aramaic  name.     The  man  appears  in  the  name. 

Ver.  25.  Thomas  received  information  from  his  fellow-disciples  of 
the  first  manifestation  of  Himself  by  Jesus ;  but  he  is  not  satisfied. — ■ 
In  other  words,  he  will  not  believe  unless  He  sees.  Yet  it  hardly 
seems  as  if  the  Resurrection  of  .Jesus  were  the  sole  object  of  his  incre- 
dulity. That  is  no  doubt  primarily  in  view ;  but  we  have  already 
seen  that  the  word  'believe'  must  be  understood  in  a  fuller  and  deeper 
sense  at  ver.  8,  and  the  same  remark  applies  to  its  use  in  ver.  29.  It 
includes  therefore  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  glorified  Lord,  as  the  Re- 
deemer who  has  completely  accomplished  the  purpose  of  His  mission, 
and  in  whom  the  highest  hopes  of  Israel  are  fulfilled.  To  Thomas  the 
death  upon  the  cross  had  appeared  to  crush  these  hopes  forever. 
Could  he  be  convinced  of  the  Resurrection,  they  would  revive;  and 
he  would  believe  not  merely  in  that  miracle  as  an  isolated  fact,  but  in 
the  whole  redeeming  work  of  which  it  was  the  culmination  and  the 
seal.  Thus  a^so  we  are  not  to  imagine  that  he  is  content  to  waver 
between  conviction  and  doubt.  His  old  love  for  his  Lord — that  love 
which  seems  to  have  burned  in  the  breast  of  no  apostle  more  warmly 
than  in  his — still  continues.  His  mood  has  been  one  of  disappoint- 
ment and  sorrow;  and  the  sorrow  is  deepened  in  exact  proportion  to 
the  height  of  his  previous  expectations,  and  to  what  he  knows  will  be 
the  joyful  result  if  he  be  able  to  believe  the  tidings  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion. The  harsh  impression  generally  made  by  these  words  of  Thomas 
is  probably  in  no  small  measure  due  to  the  unfortunate  translation 
*  thrust,'  which  suggests  the  thought  of  coarseness  and  recklessness  of 
speech.  But  there  is  no  such  meaning  in  the  original.  The  word  is 
indeed  the  same  as  that  in  the  previous  clause  which  the  translators 
of  the  Authorized  Version  themselves  render  by  'put.'  What  Thomas 
desires  is  certainly  more  than  had  been  granted  to  the  others.  Jesus 
^showed  unto  them  both  His  hands  and  His  side'  (ver.  20);  but 
Thomas  would  touch  them.  Had  he  been  present  at  the  first  mani- 
festation, he  would  probably  have  been  satisfied  with  the  evidence 
that  was  enough  for  his  fellow-apostles.  At  all  events,  he  is  now 
ready  to  believe,  if  only  what  seems  to  him  sufficient  evidence  is 
given  ;  and  his  desire  is  granted. 

Ver.  20.  The  place  of  assembly  was  without  doubt  the  same  as  be- 
fore ;  and  that  the  apostles  were  assembled  on  the  fc^unday  appears  to 
27 


418  JOHN  XX.  [20:  27. 

in,  and  Thomas  with  them.     Jesus  cometh,  the  doors 

being  shut,  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  said.  Peace  he 

27  unto  you.     Then  saith  he  to  Thomas,  Reach  hitiier 

thy  finger  and  see  my  hands;  and  reach  hither  thy 

indicate  that  they  already  regarded  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  a  day 
which  the  Risen  Lord  would  peculiarly  bless. 

Ver.  27.  Jesus  at  once  speaks  without  needing  to  be  told  of  the 
doubts  of  Thomas.  At  the  same  time  He  recognizes  the  naturalness 
of  that  element  of  weakness  which  marked  the  faith  of  His  disciple, 
and  He  will  so  meet  it  that  it  may  give  place  to  strength.  As  before, 
under  the  word  '  believing '  Ave  must  understand  not  belief  in  the  Re- 
surrection only,  but  a  full  faith  in  .Jesus  Himself  as  the  Saviour  who 
has  triumphed  over  all  His  foes,  and  has  accomplished  the  purposes  of 
His  love. 

Ver.  28.  Thomas  passes  at  once  from  the  depths  of  his  despondency 
and  hesitation  to  the  most  exalted  faith.  The  words  '  My  Lord  and 
my  God,'  are  certainly  addressed  to  Jesus  ;  and  it  is  unnecessary  to 
combat  the  position  that  they  are  only  an  expression  of  the  aposile's 
thankfulness  to  God  for  what  he  has  seen.  They  are  a  triumphant 
confession  of  his  fiith,  not  simply  in  the  Resurrection,  but  in  Him 
whom  he  sees  before  him  in  all  the  Divinity  both  of  His  Person  and 
of  His  work.  Yet  we  are  not  to  imagine. that  only  now  for  the  first 
time  did  such  thoughts  enter  his  mind.  They  had  been  long  vaguely 
entertained,  long  feebly  cherished.  Nor  can  we  doubt  that  they  had 
been  gaining  strength,  when  they  were  suddenly  dashed. by  that  death 
upon  the  cross  with  which  it  seemed  impossible  to  reconcile  them. 
Then  came  the  tidings  of  the  Resurrection,  even  in  themselves  most 
startling,  but  to  Thomas  (we  may  well  suppose)  more  startling  than 
to  any  of  the  other  apostles.  Were  they  true?  He  saw  in  an  instant 
how  incalculable  would  be  the  consequences.  It  was  this  very  per- 
ception of  the  greatness  of  the  tidings  that  led  him  to  reject  them. 
His  state  of  mind  had  been  the  same  as  in  11 :  16,  where,  when  Jesus 
hinted  at  giving  life,  he  went  rather  to  the  opposite  extreme,  and 
thought  of  a  death  that  would  involve  not  only  Lazarus  but  them  all. 
Thus  also  now.  He  hears  that  Jesus  is  risen,  and  his  first  impulse  is 
to  say,  '  It  cannot  be :  thick  darkness  cannot  pass  at  once  into  such 
glorious  light;  the  despair  which  is  justified  by  what  has  happened 
cannot  at  once  be  transformed  into  inextinguishable  confidence  and 
hope.  This  depth  of  feeling  prepared  him  for  the  completeness  of  the 
revulsion  that  now  took  place.  For  a  week  he  had  been  able  to  medi- 
tate on  all  that  he  had  both  seen  and  heard.  We  cannot  doubt  that 
during  that  time  the  sayings  of  his  Lord  about  His  resurrection,  as 
well  as  His  death,  would  all  return  to  his  memoi'y.  He  would  see 
that  what  was  said  to  have  happened  had  been  foretold ;  after  all  it 
was  not  to  be  rejected  as  impossible.  He  would  think  with  himself 
what  kind  or  amount  of  proof  could  convince  him  that  the  fact  was 


20:28,29.]  JOHN  XX.  419 

hand,  and  put  it  into  my  side  :  and   be  not  faithless, 

28  but  believing.     Thomas  answered  and  said  unto  him, 

29  My  Lord  and  my  God.  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Be- 
cause thou  hast  seen  me,  ^  thou  hast  believed  :  blessed 
are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  believed. 

1  Or,  hast  thou  believdf 

true  ;  and  he  would  be  unable  to  fall  upon  any  harder  proof  than  that 
which  his  incredulity  had  suggested  in  the  moment  of  its  first  strength. 
But,  if  that  proof  can  be  given,  then  how  powerfully  would  he  feel 
the  injustice  which  by  his  doubting  he  had  done  his  Master  !  With 
what  force  would  intimations,  once  dark  but  now  bright  in  the  light  of 
the  supposed  Resurrection,  come  home  to  him  !  His  very  highest  ex- 
pectations would  seem  to  him  to  have  been  warranted,  and  more  than 
warranted,  by  the  facts.  We  need  not  wonder  that,  having  passed 
thi-oiigh  a  week  so  rich  in  training  power,  Thomas,  when  he  did  be- 
hold the  Risen  Lord,  should  have  leaped  at  once  from  his  former  un- 
belief to  faith  in  its  highest  stage,  or  that  he  should  have  exclaimed 
to  Jesus  Oly  Lord  and  my  God.'  It  may  even  be  doubted  if,  before 
this  confession  was  made,  he  found  it  necessary  to  put  his  finger  into 
the  print  of  the  nails  or  his  hand  into  the  wounded  side.  It  was 
enough  to  'see'  (ver.  29).  Those  who  study  the  structure  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  will  hardly  fail  to  trace  in  the  incident  thus  placed  at 
the  close  of  its  narrative  the  tendency  of  the  H^'angelist  to  return 
upon  his  own  early  steps.  He  had  begun  with  'the  Word'  who  '  was 
God ;'  he  closes  with  the  highest  truth  accepted  and  ratified  by  those 
to  whom  the  revelation  was  given.  The  last  witness  borne  by  oue  of 
them  in  the  body  of  the  Gospel  narrative  is,  '  My  Lord  and  my  God ! ' 
Ver.  29.  The  words  are  intended  for  the  Church  now  about  to  be 
called  out  of  the  world, — for  the  Church  of  all  ages,  which  by  the 
vei'y  necessity  of  the  case  must  believe  without  seeing.  What  then  is 
the  contrast  which  Jesus  has  in  view  ?  Can  it  be  a  contrast  between 
faith  which  wishes  to  see  the  miraculous  fact  in  order  to  accept  it,  and 
faith  which  accepts  the  fact  on  the  ground  of  simple  testimony  ?  Such 
an  explanation  limits  unduly  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  believe.'  It 
tsubstitutes  one  kind  of  seeing  for  another  (for  what  does  testimony  do 
but  place  us  in  the  position  of  the  original  witnesses  ?) ;  and,  by  fail- 
ing to  bring  us  into  direct  contact  with  the  Person  of  Jesus,  it  lowers 
the  state  of  mind  to  which  the  blessedness  of  the  Gospel  is  attached. 
The  conti'ast  is  of  a  deeper  kind, — between  a  faith  resting  entirely 
upon  outward  evidence  of  Divine  claims,  and  a  faith  resting  higher 
and  resting  upon  that  intuitive  perception  of  the  Divine  in  Jesus 
which  is  afforded  by  the  consideration  of  what  He  is  in  Himself  as 
the  Crucified  and  Risen  Lord.  In  the  ages  of  the  Church  which  were 
to  follow  the  '  going  away  '  of  Jesus,  it  was  needful  that  faith  should 
rest  first  upon  testimony  :  but  it  was  not  to  pause  there.  It  was  to 
rest  upon  the  spiritual  ai^prehcnsiou  of  that  to  which  testimony  is 


420  JOHN  XX.  [20:  30. 

Chapter  20:  30-31. 

Summary  of  the   Gospel. 

30      Many  other  signs  therefore  did  Jesus  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  disciples,  which  are   not  written  in  this 

borne, — of  that  which  the  Lord  is  in  Himself  as  the  embodiment  of 
the  Divine,  and  the  vmchanging  spring  of  the  heavenly  power  and 
grace  which  are  manifested  in  His  people.  Thus  to  us,  who  are  sepa- 
rated by  many  centuries  from  the  time  when  the  Lord  was  personally 
present  in  the  world,  is  the  blessed  assui-ance  given  that,  though  we 
have  not  seen  Him,  we  may  love  Him ;  and  that,  though  now  we  see 
Him  not,  we  may  rejoice  in  Him  with  a  joy  unspeakable  and  glorified 
(1  Pet.  1:  8).  We  need  not  envy  Thomas  or  his  fellow-apostles. 
They  were  blessed  in  their  faith  ;  we  may  be  even  more  blessed  in 
ours.  The  more  we  penetrate  through  the  outward  to  the  inward, 
through  the  flesh  to  the  spirit,  through  communion  with  the  earthly 
to  communion  with  the  heavenly  Lord,  the  more  do  we  learn  to  know 
the  fulness  that  is  in  Him,  in  whom  'dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the 
Godhead  bodily,'  and  in  whom  we  are  'complete'  (Col.  2  :  9,  10). 

Summary  of  the  Gospd,  vers.  30,  31. 

Contents. — The  life  of  Jesus  has  now  boeu  traced  from  His  eternal  pre-existence  as 
the  Logos,  through  His  manifestation  of  Himself  in  action  and  suffering  upon  earth, 
to  the  beginning  of  His  glorification.  Tlie  Evangelist  has  thus  accomplished  the  pur- 
pose that  he  had  proposed  to  himself ;  and  he  now  sums  up  the  particulars  of  the  pic- 
ture that  he  has  presented,  and  states  the  nature  of  the  end  that  it  is  designed  to 
serve.  It  has  indeed  been  urged  that  the  verses  before  us  are  the  conclusion  only  of 
the  history  given  in  the  Gospel.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  this  supposition  is  refuted 
by  the  words  '  this  book,'  and  by  what  we  shall  find  to  be  the  purport  of  the  verses. 

Vers.  30,  31.  Almost  every  word  of  this  statement  is  of  the  utmost 
importance.  '  Many  other  signs  did  Jesus : '  hence  it  is  only  a  selec- 
tion that  has  been  given  in  the  book.  The  writer  knows  much 
more  of  a  similar  character  and  fitted  to  make  a  similar  impression, 
but  he  has  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  tell  it.  What  he  has  related  are 
'signs,' — not  simply  miracles  of  Divine  power,  but  manifestations  (now 
in  deed,  and  now  in  word)  of  an  inner  meaning,  illustrating  the  Di- 
vine in  Him  by  whom  the  deeds  are  performed  or  the  words  spoken. 
'In  the  presence  of  His  disciples:'  why  not  in  the  presence  of  the 
world  ?  Had  they  not  been  done  in  public  as  well  as  in  private,  be- 
fore enemies  as  well  as  friends  ?  They  had :  but  it  is  not  upon  them 
as  signs  which  ought  to  have  convinced  the  unbelieving  that  the  Evan- 
gelist has  chiefly  dwelt.  As  he  recalled  them,  he  once  more  beheld 
Jesus  in  the  midst  of  the  little  band  of  His  disciples,  making  manifest 
His  glory  to  them  alone  ;  while  they  apprehended  that  glory,  forgetful 
of  everything  but  itself,  and  the  feelings  of  admiration,  wonder,  de- 


20:  31.]  JOHN  XX.  421 


31  book  :  but  these  are  written  that  ye  may  believe  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  ;  and  that  believ- 
ing ye  may  have  life  in  his  name. 

light,  and  love  which  i.t  awakened  in  their  hearts.     They  thought  not 
of  the  world  at  the  time;  they  saw  only  that  all  was  done  for  them. 
So  now  in  the  vividness  of  John's  recollection  every  'sign"  appears 
exactly  as  at  the  moment  when  it  was  wrought,  full  of  meaning  to  dis- 
ciples ;  to  others, — nay,  it  is  not  necessary  to  mention  them  at  all 
(comp.  17:9;  1  John  5  :  IG).     '  But  these  are  written  :'  that  is,  these 
'  signs '   are   written.     The  Gospel  then  is  a  record  of  '  signs,'  and 
whatever  else  it  contains  must  be  regarded  as  subordinate  to  them. 
*  That  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  : ' — 
words  by  which  we  are  not  to  understand   that  the  signs  have  been 
written  in  order  that  unbelieving  readers  may  be  led  to  acknowledge 
the  claims  of  Jesus.     The  word  '  believe  '  is  not  used  in  the  sense  of 
being  brought  to  faith,  as  if  those  addressed  had  not  had  faith  before. 
They  are  already  believers,  disciples,  friends.     What  has  been  aimed 
at  is  not  the  first  formation  but  the  deepening  of  faith  within  them 
(such  as  that  of  which  we  read  in  2 :  11,  where  we  are  told  that  His 
disciples   'believed"   in   Him),   by   which   they  are   led  into  a  truer 
knowledge  of  their  Lord,  as  well  as  into  a  more  intimate  communion 
with  Him  and,  in  Him,  with  the  Father.     To  make  his  readers  rest  in 
faith,  so  that  faith  shall  not  be  a  mere  conclusion  of  the  intellect,  but 
the  element  and  spirit  of  their  lives,  is  what  the  writer  has  proposed 
to  himself.     '  And  that,  believing,  ye  may  have  life  : '  not,  that ,  being 
brought  to  faith  through  the  record  which  he  gives,  they  may  obtain 
life  in  Jesus  ;  but  that,  as  already  believing, — in  Him  as  the  branch  is 
in  the  vine,— they  may  in  Him  enjoy  that  spii'itual  and  eternal  life 
which  He  possesses,  and  which  He  makes  ever  more  and  more  largely 
the  portion  of  His  people,  as  their  faith  in  Him   deepens,  and  their 
fellowship  with  Him  increases.     Finally,  'in  His  name:'  not  merely 
naming  His  name  or  confessing  Him  before  men, — but  in  His  Name, 
in  Himself  as  revealed,  made  known  as  what  He  is, — the  revelation  of 
the  Father,  and  possessed  of  all  the  glorious  qualities  belonging  to  the 
Son.     Such  is  the  meaning  of  these  words  when  they  are  looked  at  in 
the  light  of  those  rules  of  interpretation  which  are  supplied  by  the 
Gospel ;  and,  with  this  meaning,  they  set  before  us  in  the  most  defi- 
nite manner  the  writer's  own  conception  of  the  task  which  he  had  un- 
dertaken.    They  refer  obviously,  too,  to  the  Gospel  as  a  whole,  and 
not  to  any  single  section.     At  this  point,  then,  the  narrative  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  closes,  having  exhibited  to  us  that  '  life  '  which  was  in 
'  the  Word'  (chap.  1  :  4),  and  having  so  set  that  Word  before  us  that 
believers,  dwelling  upon  His  manifested  glory,  may  be  brought  to  a 
deeper  knowledge  of  what  He  is,  and  to  more  and  fuller  life  in  Him. 


422  JOHN  XXL  [21:1. 

Chapter  21 :  1-14. 
Miraculous  Draught  of  Fishes — TJie  Meal  on  the  Shore 

of  the  Sea  «f  Galilee. 
1      After  these  things  Jesus  manifested  himself  again 

Miraculous   Draught  of  Fishes— The  Meal   on  the   Shore  of  the  Sea  of 
Galilee,  vers.   1-14. 

Contents. — The  authenticity  ami  genuiuoness  of  the  chapter  upon  which  we  now 
enter  have  been  keenly  contested  ;  while  many,  who  admit  that  John  is  the  author  of 
the  cliapter,  see  in  it  not  so  much  an  organic  part  of  his  original  work  as  a  section 
added  at  a  later  date,  but  before  the  Gospel  had  passed  beyond  the  first  circle  of  its 
readers.  The  main  arguments  brought  by  the  defenders  of  both  these  views  are  (1) 
That  in  chap.  20 :  30,  31,  we  have  what  is  obviously  the  close  of  the  Gospel ;  and  (2) 
That  certain  expressions  of  this  chapter,  particularly  those  of  vers.  24,  25,  are  incon- 
sistent with  the  idea  of  a  Johanuine  authorship.  As  to  the  first  of  these  hypotheses, 
that  chap.  20  was  not  written  by  John,  we  need  not  say  more  than  that  it  is  opposed 
to  all  the  evidence  possessed  by  us,  whether  external  or  internal.  Its  defenders,  there- 
fore, have  been  few  in  number  as  comjjared  with  those  who  have  accepted  the  chap- 
ter as  genuine.  With  the  latter  we  agree,  entertaining  no  duubt  that  the  first  twen- 
ty-three verses  at  all  events  are  from  the  hand  of  the  Apostle  :  of  vers.  24  and  25  we 
shall  speak  when  we  reach  them.  It  is  more  difficult  to  say  whether  the  chapter  is  a 
constituent  part  of  the  original  plan,  or  an  Appendix  added  after  the  Gospel  had  been 
finished,  and  when  a  longer  or  shoiter  period  of  time  had  passed.  The  question  ia  one 
that  must  be  determined  mainly  by  taking  the  contents  of  the  chapter  into  account. 
When  this  is  done,  there  seems  little  reason  to  doubt  that  we  have  here  an  Epilogue 
corresponding  to  the  Trologue,  and— not  less  tlian  the  latter — properly  belonging  to 
the  organic  structure  of  the  Gospel  as  a  whole.  The  particular  idea  which  the  chapter 
unfolds  is  not  merely  fresh  illustration  of  the  glory  of  the  Redeemer's  post-resurrection 
life.  Were  it  no  more  than  this,  we  should  at  once  allow  that  the  chapter  is  at  best 
an  Appendix  to  the  Go?pel.  It  would  be  impossible  to  think  that,  after  having  writ- 
ten the  words  of  chap.  20 :  30,  31,  the  Evangelist  should  iinmediatcly  pass  to  another 
illustration  of  the  same  thought.  No  doubt  the  idea  of  which  we  speak  is  involved  in 
the  first  narrative  of  the  chapter,  which  is  distinctly  stated  to  be  a  'third  '  manifesta- 
tion of  Himself  by  the  Eisen  Lord  (ver.  14),  and  is  thus  placed,  in  one  respect  at 
least,  on  the  same  line  as  the  two  preceding  manifestations  of  chap.  20.  Yet  an  at- 
tentive consideration  of  that  narrative  will  show  that  the  great  truth  which  the  Evan- 
gelist beholds  in  it  is,  the  joy  provided  by  Jesus  for  His  disciples  in  connection  with 
the  work  which  they  accomplish  for  the  conversion  of  the  world,— that  the  dominat- 
ing thought  which  it  presents  to  him  is  not  merely  the  glory  of  the  Eisen  Lord,  but 
the  gl>ry  of  Christian  work  as  it  is  performed  through  Him,  and  its  fruits  are  enjoyed 
with  Him.  If  this  be  the  ide-i  of  the  first  part  of  the  chapter,  we  shall  find,  when  we 
come  to  the  commentary,  that  its  second  and  third  parts,  relating  to  the  two  Apostles, 
Peter  and  John,  are  much  more  than  simple  narratives  of  facts.  They  lead  the 
thoughts  to  apostolic  work  and  Christian  action,  and  to  waiting  for  the  Second  Com- 
ing cf  the  Lord.     Three  leading  thoughts  are  thus  presented  to  us  in  the  chapter, 


21 :  1.]  JOHX  XXL  423' 

to  the  disciples  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias :  and  he  inani- 

which  may  be  thus  described : — (1)  The  mutual  joy  of  the  Bisen  Lord  and  His  disci- 
ples in  the  successful  accomplishment  of  Christ's  work,  vers.  l-i4;  (2)  The  work  of 
Apostolic  and  Christian  witnessing  between  the  Resurrection  of  Jesnu  and  His  Second 
C<jming,  vers.  16-19  ;  (3)  The  Second  Coming  itself,  vers.  20-23.  If  now  we  compare 
these  three  thoughts  with  the  leading  thoughts  of  the  Prologue,  the  correspondence 
w  ill  appear  close  and  remarkable.  In  the  Prologue  as  well  as  here,  three  main  topics 
are  dwelt  upon  :  (1)  The  Word  with  God,  the  Son  with  the  Father,  In  His  general 
manifestations  before  His  Incarnation,  vers.  1-5 :  (2)  The  witnessing  to  Him  who 
was  to  come,  which  culminated  in  John,  the  representative  of  Old  Testament  witness, 
vers.  G-13;  The  coming  of  Jesus  into  the  world,  vers.  14-18.  In  other  words  we  have 
in  the  opening  and  closing  parts  of  the  Fourth  Gospel — 

I.  The  Peologce  with  its  Three  Thovghts.— 1.  The  Light  to  be  witnessed  to,  33 
it  appears  in  its  inner  fulness  and  power.  2.  The  preparation  by  witness  tor  that 
Light.    3.  The  coming  of  the  Light. 

II.  The  Epilogue  with  its  Three  TnorGHTS. — 1.  The  Redeemer  who  is  to  be  wit- 
nessed to,  as  He  appears  in  tbe  joy  of  successful  and  accomplished  work.  2.  The 
preparation  of  the  world  for  that  joy  by  the  work  of  witnessing.  3.  The  Second 
Coming. 

The  detailed  exjKjsition  of  these  thoughts  will  appear  in  the  commentary.  In  the 
meantime  we  have  said  enough  to  justify  our  regarding  chap.  21  as  an  Epilogue,  as 
an  integral  part  of  the  organism  of  the  CJospel  as  we  have  it, — its  Seventh  and  last 
great  section.  This  intimate  connection  of  the  chapter  with  the  general  plan  of  the 
Gospel  is  the  point  of  real  imiwrtance,  and  it  is  on  this  that  we  would  lay  stress. 
"Whether  the  Epilogue  formed  part  of  the  Gospel  from  the  very  first,  or  was  added  by 
the  apost'e  at  a  later  date,  is  a  subordinate  question,  and  one  to  which  different  an- 
swers will  naturally  be  given.  There  are  peculiarities  of  language  and  of  structure 
which  seem  decidedly  to  favor  the  latter  supposition.  On  the  other  hand,  we  should 
cer  ainly  expect  that,  if  the  Gospel  was  ever  circulated  in  two  forms  (with  and  with- 
out" he  Appendix),  the  last  chapter  would  be  absent  from  some  of  our  ancient  manu- 
scripts, or  would  at  all  events  be  occasionallj*  found  separated  from  the  rest.  It  is 
possible,  indeed,  that  the  Gos5pel  might  in  its  shorter  form  be  confined  to  a  verj' limited 
circle  of  Christians,  and  be  published  for  general  use  when  complete.  In  this  form 
the  .^fipendix  theory  miiy  perhaps  be  said  to  meet  the  conditions  of  the  case. 

The  whole  structure  of  the  narrative  upon  which  we  now  enter  shows  that 
to  the  eye  of  the  Evangelist,  it  is  not  only  history  but  parable.  As,  therefore,  it  is 
with  a  mind  alive  to  the  spiritual  meaning  of  the  scene  that  John  describes  what  ac- 
tually happened,  special  significance  may  be  looked  for  in  the  expressions  which  he 
employs. 

Yer,  1,  The  words  'after  these  things'  are  indefinite,  and  throw 
no  light  upon  the  length  of  the  interval  that  elapsed  between  the  last 
and  the  present  appearance  of  Jesus.  The  point  to  which  the  Evan- 
gelist calls  attention  is  that  we  have  here  another  '  manifestation '  of 
Himself  by  the  Risen  Saviour,  similar  to  the  two  mentioned  in  the 
previous  chapter  (comp.  chap.  21  :  14).  What  we  have  before  us, 
therefore,  is  not  merely  the  fact  that  Jesus  showed  Himself  to  the  dis- 


'424  JOHN  XXI.  [21 :  2, 3. 

2  fested  himself  on  this  wise.  There  were  together 
Simon  Peter,  and  Thomas  called  ^  Didymus,  and  Xa- 
thauael  of  Caiia  in  Galilee,  and  the  soiis  of  Zebedee, 

3  and  two  other  of  his  disci])les.  Simon  Peter  saith 
unto  them,  I  go  a  fishing.  They  say  unto  him,  We 
also  come  with  thee.  They  went  forth,  and  entered 
into   the   boat;  and   that   night    they  took   nothing. 

1  That  is,  Twin. 

ciples,  but  that  He  exhibited  Himself  in  a  glory  which  the  natural 
eye  could  not  have  discerned  (see  chap.  2:  11).  It  was  'at  the  sea 
of  Tiberias,'  that  is,  the  sea  of  Galilee,  that  the  manifestation  took 
place.  The  earlier  Evangelists  do  not  relate  it,  but  they  give  the 
message  of  our  Lord  to  His  disciples  instructing  them  to  go  into 
Galilee,  for  there  they  should  see  Him  (Matt.  28:  10,16;  Mark  16: 
7).  John  does  not  tell  us  of  the  message,  but  he  relates  the  meeting. 
Surely  such  notices  on  the  part  of  the  different  historians  are  supple- 
mentally, not  discordant. 

Ver.  2.  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  seven  persons  here  referred  to 
are  arranged,  as  is  often  supposed,  in  two  groups,  one  consisting  of 
three,  and  the  other  of  four  members.  There  may  be  signiticance  in 
the  mention  of  Thomas  as  now  (after  chap.  20)  completely  at  one 
with  his  brother  Apostles,  and  in  the  fact  that  Nathanael  (comp.  1 : 
5i )  is  associated  with  the  miracle. 

Ver.  3.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  in  this  the  disciples  thought  of 
anything  but  the  supply  of  their  temporal  wants.  To  John,  however, 
there  is  more  in  their  act  than  this.  His  word  '  went  forth  '  leads  us 
at  once  to  feel  that  he  sees  in  their  going  the  Providential  guidance  of 
God  (comp.  notes  on  18:  1,  4).  It  is  not  an  ordinary  event:  it  will 
illustrate  that  Divine  scheme  for  the  salvation  of  men  which  was  ac- 
complished through  Him  who  'came  forth'  from  God.  Moreover, 
just  as  once  before  Peter  and  some  of  his  companions  had  been  called 
from  the  work  of  fishing  to  the  first  stage  of  their  apostolate  (Luke  5  : 
1-11),  so  shall  he  and  those  with  him  be  called  from  a  similar  scene 
to  that  higher  stage  upon  Avhich  they  are  now  to  enter.  In  Petei^'s 
being  the  first  to  make  the  proposal,  we  see  the  elements  of  that  cha- 
racter wliich  gave  him  the  prominence  he  afterward  had  in  the  Church 
of  the  Redeemer.  He  is  the  moving  spring  of  the  whole  apostolic 
band ;  he  proposes,  and  the  others  say,  '  We  also  come  with  thee.' 
Yet  writers  can  be  found  to  urge  that  one  great  object  of  the  Fourth 
Gospel  is  to  depreciate  Peter  in  comparison  with  John,  one  of  this 
very  company  !  The  seven  go  forth  by  '  night '  (the  usual  time  for 
fishing),  but  they  caught  nothing.  There  is  reason  to  think  that  the 
season  was  unfavorable  ;  but  they  were  not  successful. — The  word 
used  for  '  catch  '  means  to  lay  hold  on,  and  it  does  not  seem  to  be 
elsewhere  used  in  the  sense  of  catching  fish. 


21:  4-7.]  JOHN  XXI.  425 

4  But  when  the  day  was  now  breaking,  Jesus  stood  on 
the  beach  ;  howbeit  the  disciples  knew  not  that  it  was 

5  Jesus.  Jesus  therefore  saith  unto  them,  Chiklren, 
have  ye  aught   to  eat?     They  answered   him,    No. 

6  And  he  said  unto  them,  Cast  the  net  on  the  right 
side  of  the  boat  and  ye  shall  find.  They  cast  there- 
fore, and  now  they  were  not  able  to  draw  it  up  for  the 

7  multitude  of  fishes.  That  disciple  therefore  whom 
Jesus  loved    saith    unto  Peter,  It  is  the  Lord.     So 

Ver.  4.  But  -when  morning  -was  now  coming,  Jesus 
stood  on  the  shore ;  the  disciples  hoTvever  knew  not  that 
it  -was  Jesus.  Night  passed  away,  and  the  day  began  to  break. 
Then  Jesus  stood  on  the  shore,  but  they  did  not  recognize  Him, — it 
may  be  that  the  light  was  insufficient,  it  may  be  that  it  was  not  yet 
His  wish  that  He  should  be  known. 

Ver.  5.  The  word  '  children  '  is  a  word  of  tenderness  and  affec- 
tion. At  the  same  time  it  may  perhaps  have  a  deeper  meaning,  for 
the  word  'brethren'  in  2() :  17,  which  now  expresses  the  relation  of 
Jesus  to  His  disciples,  rather  leads  directly  to  the  supposition  that, 
in  a  certain  sense,  He  speaks  as  One  standing  on  a  footing  of  equality 
with  themselves.  There  is  at  least  a  striking  coincidence  between  the 
word  ( '  children ' )  here  used  and  that  used  in  Heb.  2  :  13  (Isa.  8  :  18). 
He  who  speaks  is  engaged  in  the  same  occupation,  takes  the  same  posi- 
tion, is  called  to  the  same  work  as  they.  The  question  which  He  asks  is 
important,  especially  the  word  which  is  rendered  in  the  Authorized 
Version  '  meat,'  but  which  we  have  rendered  by  '  to  eat.'  For  thus  we 
observe  the  ti'ue  point  of  the  question, — not,  '  Rave  you  caught  tish?  ' 
but,  '  Have  you  fish  to  eat?  '  The  term,  however,  was  commonly  used 
of  fish.  Here  it  seems  to  refer  to  provision  of  fish  taken  by  them  for 
eating  when  they  started.  It  ought  to  be  carefully  noted  also  that, 
as  is  shown  by  the  particular  form  of  the  question,  it  is  the  meal  that  is 
before  the  mind  of  Jesus :  only  when  we  see  this  do  we  gain  the  true 
point  of  view  from  which  to  contemplate  the  whole  narrative.  To  the 
question  of  .Jesus  the  disciples  answer  '  No.'  They  thus  acknowledge 
the  fruitlessness  of  their  labors,  and  their  need  of  further  light  and 
guidance. 

Vers.  6,  7.  The  incident  thus  related  of  each  of  the  two  apostles  is 
in  closest  harmony  with  everything  else  that  we  know  of  them.  John 
himself  gives  us  a  token  of  his  desire  that  we  should  see  in  the  action 
of  Peter  an  illustration  of  that  character  which  appeared  in  his  whole 
subsequent  career.  He  does  not  call  him  simply  Simon  Peter  :  but, 
as  in  18 :  10,  he  interposes  a  word  between  the  two  names, — '  Simon, 
therefore,  Peter.'  As  soon  as  Peler  heard  that  it  was  the  Lord,  he 
girt  his  coat  about  him,  '  for  he  was  naked.'  There  is  no  reason  to 
think  that  the  nakedness  thus  spoken  of  was  absolute.    The  use  of  the 


426  JOHN  XXI.  [21:  8-11. 

when  Simon  Peter  heard  that  it  was  the  Lord,  he 
girt  his  coat  about  him  (for  he  was  naked),*  and  cast 

8  himself  into  the  sea.  But  the  other  disciples  came 
in  the  little  boat  (for  they  were  not  far  from  the  land, 
but  about  two  hundred  cubits  off*,)  dragging  the  net 

^  full  of  fishes.  So  when  they  got  out  upon  tlae  land, 
they  see  ^a  fire  of  coals  there,  and  ^  fish  laid  thereon, 

10  and  ^  bread.     Jesus  saith  unto  them.  Bring  of  the  fish 

11  which  ye  have  now  taken.      Simon  Peter  therefore 

*  "  was  naked  "  add  marg.     Or,  had  on  hisvnder  garments  only. — Am.  Com. 
1  Gr.  a  fire  of  charcoal.  2  Qr,  a  Jhh.  3  Or,  a  loaf. 

term  is  consistent  (in  Greek  as  in  the  language  of  common  life  in 
Scotland  to  this  day)  with  partial  clothing.  The  girding  is  probably 
not  to  pass  unnoticed.  It  was  thus  that  in  13  :  4,  5,  our  Lord  pre- 
pared Himself  for  service.  His  apostle,  when  preparing  for  the  active 
service  of  his  Master,  must  do  the  same. 

Ver.  8.  While  Peter  takes  the  lead,  impetuously  dashing  into  the 
water  (comp.  Matt.  14:  29),  his  fellow-disciples  reach  land  moi-e 
slowly.  Yet  they  do  not  actually  land  the  net:  they  only  drag  it  to 
the  shore.  The  landing  is  reserved  for  him  who  had  displayed  great- 
est earnestness  and  activity.  All  now  proceeds  directly  towards  the 
culndnating  point  of  the  narrative, — the  meal. 

Ver.  9.  When  therefore  they  came  out  on  the  land,  they  see 
a  fire  of  charcoal  placed  there,  and  a  firih  placed  thereon,  and 
a  loaf.  No  intimation  is  given  where  the  fire  of  charcoal  had  been  ob- 
tained, or  how  it  had  been  brought  there.  The  thoughts  of  the  Evan- 
gelist are  so  entirely  occupied  with  the  meal,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  no 
consequence  to  him  to  give  explanations  upon  such  points.  Upon  one 
fact  he  desires  us  to  fix  our  attention — the  meal  is  provided  by  Jesus, 
whether  miraculously  or  in  some  ordinaiy  way  he  does  not  ask.'  It  is 
impossible  not  to  notice  the  words  'a  fish  '  and  '  a  loaf,'  not  '  fish  '  and 
*  bread :'  the  contrast  with  '  the  fishes  '  of  ver.  10  is  obviously  designed. 

Ver.  10.  The  meal  consists  of  materials  provided  by  the  combined 
action  of  Jesus  and  His  disciples. 

Ver.  11.  Again  Peter  appears  in  all  the  prominence  of  his  cha- 
racter and  work, — the  leader  of  the  apostolic  company.  The  fishes 
drawn  to  shore  by  means  of  the  net  were  'great;'  yet  neither  by  their 
size  nor  by  their  number  was  the  net  rent.  No  fish  was  lost.  (See 
further  below.) — The  comparison  of  this  miracle  with  that  of  the 
draught  of  fishes  in  Luke  5:  4-7  supplies  various  points  of  contrast, 
at  once  bringing  out  and  confirming  what  we  have  yet  to  speak  of  as 
the  inner  meaning  of  the  section  before  us.  Of  these  the  most  inte- 
resting are  that  the  fishes  are  all  great  and  good,  and  numbered  ;  in 
the  earlier  narrative  we  have  no  such  statements.     In  the  earlier,  too, 


21:12-14.]  JOHN  XXI.  427 

went   ^  up,  and  drew  the  net  to  land,   full  of  great 
fishes,  a  hundred  and  fifty  and    three  :    and  for  all 

12  there  were  so  many  the  net  was  not  rent.  Jesus  saith 
unto  them,  Come  and  break  your  fast.     And  none  of 

13  the  disciples  durst  inquire  of  him,  AVho  art  thou? 
knowing  that  it  was  the  Lord.  Jesus  cometh  and 
taketh  the  ^  bread,  and  giveth  them,  and  the  fish  like- 

14  wise.     This   is   now   the  third  time  that  Jesus  was 

1  Or,  aboard.  2  Oi-^  loaf. 

the  net  vas  breaking;  here  'the  net  was  not  rent.'  The  contrasts  all 
point  to  the  ditference  between  a  ministry  of  trial  with  a  suffering 
Lord,  and  a  ministry  of  tritimph  with  a  glorified  Lord. 

Ver.  12.  Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Come  and  breakfast.  The 
bringing  of  the  fish  from  the  net  to  the  fire  is  not  recorded.  The 
Evangelist  hastens  to  the  cliief  point  in  his  narrative.  Jesus  gives 
the  invitation  to  the  meal,  and  it  is  acce]>ted. — None  of  the  disci- 
ples durst  make  inquiry  of  him,  Who  art  thou?  kno-wing 
that  it  "was  the  Lord.  Awe  and  reverence  prevented  their  asking 
Jesus  who  He  was  (comp.  chap.  4:  '21).  They  did  what  they  were 
told. 

Ver.  13.  Jesus  cometh  and  taketh  the  loaf,  and  giveth 
them,  and  the  fish  likewise.  We  might  have  expected  to  read  of 
the  'fishes'  rather  than  the  'fish;'  for  the  meal  prepared  must  have 
included  a  portion  of  the  'fishes'  of  ver.  10  as  weU  as  'fish'  of  ver.  9. 
Yet  such  is  the  importance  which  the  Evangelist  attaches  to  the  latter 
that  he  speaks  of  it  alone,  and  makes  no  farther  allusion  to  the  rest. 

Ver.  14.  This  is  now  a  third  time  that  Jesus  was  mani- 
fested to  the  disciples,  after  that  he  was  raised  from  the 
dead.  It  is  the  third  'manifestation,'  although  the  fourth  appear- 
ance, of  the  Risen  Lord  that  has  been  described.  The  appearance  to 
Mai'y  Magdalene  at  20:  16  is  not  counted,  either  because  it  only  em- 
bodied the  prepai-atory  message  as  to  the  state  in  which  Jesus  was,  or 
because  it  was  made,  not  (like  the  three  following)  to  companies  of 
apostles  and  disciples,  but  only  to  one  single  disciple.  That  the  pre- 
sent manifestatiou  is  stated  to  be  the  third  does  not  exclude  the  other 
appearances  of  the  Risen  Saviour  recorded  by  the  earlier  Evangelists. 
It  is  simply  the  third  in  John's  own  enumeration,  the  third  in  that 
selection  of  the  diiferent  manifestations  which  he  had  thought  it  de- 
sirable to  make.  The  repetition  of  the  word  'manifested'  (comp, 
ver.  1)  is  to  be  noticed  as  showing  that  the  word  is  intentionally  used. 
It  expresses  more  than  that  Jesus  showed  Himself  after  His  Resurrec- 
tion. In  these  manifestations  He  really  revealed  Himself  out  of  the 
entirely  new  state  which  had  begun  at  the  Resurrection.  Just  as 
when  '  manifested  in  the  flesh '  He  was  diff"erent  from  what  He  had 
been  before,  and  revealed  His  glory  in  the  garb  of  wesfk  and  suffering 


428  JOHN  XXI.  [21:  14. 

manifested  to  the  disciples,  after  that   he  was   riseu 
from  the  dead. 

humanity,  so  in  His  manifestation  of  Himself  at  tins  time  He  was  dif- 
ferent from  what  He  had  been  when  clothed  with  the  lowliness  which 
He  had  assumed  for  a  reason.  That  lowliness  has  been  laid  aside ; 
He  is  still  the  Man  Christ  Jesus,  but  glorified.  We  see  Him  now 
under  a  new  aspect,  and  at  a  new  point  in  His  history.  This  con- 
sideration will  help  us  to  understand  the  connection  of  the  next  two 
paragraphs  of  the  chapter,  and  their  place  in  the  organism  of  the 
Gospel. — Before  passing  on,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  say  a  few 
words  upon  the  inner  meaning  of  this  miracle,  upon  the  light  in  which 
our  Lord  Himself  intended  it  to  be  looked  at,  and  in  which  it  is  pre- 
sented by  the  Evangelist.  Referring  our  readers  to  the  general  re- 
marks made  on  chap.  2:  11,  we  observe  that  here,  as  there,  the  miracle 
must  be  viewed  not  only  hi>torically,  but  symbolically.  The  facts  are 
historical ;  but  they  have  at  the  same  time  much  more  than  simple 
historical  force.  They  are  so  arranged  and  grouped  by  Him  who 
taught  by  action  as  well  as  word,  that  they  bring  out  one  of  the  great 
lessons  of  His  kingdom.  Nor  can  we  have  any  doubt  in  the  present 
instance  what  that  lesson  is.  We  have  before  us  a  picture  of  the  won- 
derful success  which  was  to  follow  the  apostles  when,  in  the  strength 
of  their  Risen  Lord,  they  went  forth  to  preach  salvation  to  the  whole 
world,  as  well  as  a  picture  of  the  joy  which  they  shall  share  with  Him 
when  in  this  success  both  He  and  they  'shall  see  of  the  travail  of 
their  'soul,  and  shall  be  satisfied.'  Around  these  thoughts  it  will  be 
found  that  all  the  particvilars  of  the  miracle,  in  their  deeper  meaning, 
easily  arrange  themselves: — the  helplessness  of  these  'fishers  of  men' 
when  they  are  without  their  Lord,  their  triumphant  success  whenever 
they  listen  to  His  voice,  the  invitation  given  them  to  come  and  share 
in  that  meal  which  He  has  prepared,  and  whose  sacramental  character 
is  so  strikingly  brought  out  by  the  mention  of  the  'fish'  and  the  'loaf.' 
Every  particular  of  the  scene  is  full  of  spiritual  meaning;  and,  even 
where  we  may  not  be  able  to  satisfy  ourselves  that  we  have  discovered 
the  meaning,  we  know  that  it  is  there,  and  can  rest  in  the  hope  that 
it  will  by  and  by  be  perceived.  Perhaps  the  most  difficult  point  to 
interpret  in  this  way  is  the  number  of  the  fishes  as  given  in  ver.  11. 
It  will  be  hard  for  students  of  this  Gospel  not  to  believe  that  it  too 
has  a  deeper  meaning  than  that  of  simple  numbers.  The  whole  course 
of  the  narrative  shows  that  153  represents  the  fulness  of  the  Church, 
the  complete  gathering  in  of  all  her  members,  the  net  not  rent,  not 
one  believer  lost.  It  is  much  more  difficult  to  say  whence  the  number 
153  is  obtained.  Many  suggestions  have  been  made;  but  we  shall  not 
discuss  them.  Not  one  of  them  can  be  said  to  have  as  yet  gained 
anything  like  general  acceptance.  Until  a  more  satisfactory  result  is 
reached,  it  is  better  to  rest  satisfied  with  the  general  meaning,  of 
which  we  have  already  spoken,  and  as  to  which  no  doubt  cau  be  en- 
tertained. 


21:  15.]  JOHN  XXI.  429 

Chapter  21:  15-19. 

The  Restoration  of  Peter  and  the  Re-institution  of  Chris- 
tian Witnessing. 

15  So  when  they  had  broken  their  fast,  Jesus  saith  to 
Snnon  Peter,  Simon,  son  of  ^  John,  ^lovest  thou  me 
more  than  these  ?  He  saith  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord ; 
thou  knowest  that  I  ^love  thee.     He  saith  unto  hmi, 

1  Gr.  Joannes.    See  chap.  1 :  42,  margin. 

2  3  Love  in  these  places  represents  t«  o  different  Greek  words. 

The  Restoration  of  Peter  and  the  Re-institution  of  Christian  Witnessing, 
vers.  15-19. 

Contents. — Before  speaking  of  the  contents  of  this  paragraph,  it  is  necessary  to 
discover  its  place  in  the  organism  of  the  chapter.  So  far  as  we  have  seen  no  success- 
ful effort  has  yet  been  made  to  accomplish  this.  The  usual  explanation  is,  that  be- 
fore finally  dejiarting,  Jesus  desired  to  throw  light  upon  the  his-ory  and  fate  of  the 
two  leading  apostles,  Peter  and  John.  Such  an  explanation  is  unsatisfactory.  Apart 
from  the  fact  that  it  is  not  the  manner  of  John  to  claim  for  himself  so  prominent  a 
position  as  is  thus  implied,  it  is  sufficient  to  observe  that,  if  such  be  the  object,  it  is 
not  attained.  Light,  indeed,  is  caat  on  the  future  history  of  Peter,  but  n(jne  on  that 
of  Jolin,  which  is  rather  left  in  a  mysterious  vagueness,  perplexing  instead  of  in- 
structive to  the  mind.  Others,  again,  pronounce  any  effort  to  discover  the  connection 
hopeless,  unless  we  regard  ver.  14  as  a  parenthesis;  which  cannot  be  done.  In  pro- 
ceeding to  the  explanation  which  we  shall  venture  to  propose,  we  simply  ask  our 
readers  to  weigh  it  calmly,  and  not  to  reject  it  because  at  first  sight  it  may  seem  to 
them  improbable. — We  have  already  endeavored  to  show  that  chap.  21  is  an  Epilogue 
to  the  narrative  part  of  the  Gospel,  and  that  it  has  a  general  correspondence  with 
the  Prologue.  But  if  a  correspondence  exitts  as  to  the  whole,  it  is  not  unnatural  to 
think  that  it  may  aLo  be  traced  in  the  several  parts.  This  is  rendered  still  more 
probable  by  the  circumstance  that  the  jjarts  of  each  are  unquestionably  three  in 
number,  and  that,  while  the  one  deals  with  the  pre-existent  Logos,  and  the  eternity 
preceding  His  Incarnation,  the  other  deals  with  the  Logos  after  His  Resurrection, 
and  the  Second  Coming.  In  this  latter  respect  the  correspondence  between  chap.  1 : 
1-5  and  chap.  21 :  1-14  is  exceedingly  close.  But  at  chap.  1  :  6  there  is  a  sudden  and 
unexpected  transition  to  John  the  Baptist  and  the  witness  which  he  bore  to  the  eter- 
nal '  Liglit,'  until  the  Light  itself  shone  forth  and  needed  such  witness  no  more.  In 
precisely  the  same  manner,  then,  we  have  here  a  sudden  and  unexpected  transition 
to  the  apostle  Peter,  and  the  witness  borne  by  him  to  the  Incarnate  Word,  until  Jesus 
shall  come  the  second  time,  and  shall  need  no  more  to  be  proclaimed  to  men.  Such 
is  the  general  idea  which  we  offer  for  consideration  as  to  the  connection  between  the 
first  two  paragraphs  of  the  present  chapter;  and  when  we  come  to  speak  of  the  con- 
tents of  the  next  paragraph,  this  idea  will  receive  much  confirmation.  In  the  mean- 
time we  pass  on  to  observe  that  if  the  correctness  of  the  thought  be  allowed,  it  cannot 
fail  to  exercise  in  another  respect  a  powerful  influence  upon  our  general  apprehea- 


430  JOHN  XXI.  [21:  16. 

16  Feed  my  lambs.     He  saith  to  him  again  a  second 

sion  of  the  meaning  of  the  passage  before  iis.  For,  as  the  Baptist  at  chap.  1 :  6  is  to 
be  regarded  as  more  than  an  individual — as  representative  of  the  whole  Old  Testament 
witness  to  Jesus— so  with  Peter  here.  He  is  representative  of  all  Christian  witness 
to  Jesus ;  and  the  paragraph  deals  with  more  than  his  re-installfition  into  the  apos- 
tolic office.  It  is  a  re-institution,  now  made  by  Jesus  in  His  new  estate,  of  the  whole 
duty  of  Christian  witnessing.  Jesus  has  shown  that  the  banquet  which  in  His  state 
of  glory  He  prepares  for  His  disciples  is  one  consisting  of  the  fruits  of  successful 
work  in  His  cause;  and  now,  in  the  person  of  Peter,  His  disciples  receive  from  Him 
their  commission  for  the  work  in  which  they  are  to  bear  witness  to  Him — a  work 
which  can  only  rest  on,  and  be  carried  out  through,  love  to  Himself. 

Ver.  15.  "When  therefore  they  had  breakfasted,  Jesus  saith 
to  Simon  Peter,  etc.  The  question  ('lovest  thou')  contains  the 
second  of  the  two  Greek  verbs  for  loving,  of  which  we  have  already 
spoken  at  5 :  20.  This  verb  is  less  expressive  of  emotions  of  tender- 
ness, of  personal  feeling  and  affection,  than  that  verb  used  by  Peter 
in  his  reply.  The  words  'more  than  these'  in  our  Lord's  question 
can  hardly  spring  from  anything  else  than  the  remembrance  of  the 
apostle's  hasty  assertion  before  his  denial  of  his  Master:  'Though  all 
men  shall  be  off"ended  because  of  Thee,  yet  will  I  never  be  off"ended.' 
They  were  thus  especially  designed  to  expose  to  Petei^'s  view  the  pi-ide 
and  self-sufficiency  by  which  his  fall  had  been  hastened ;  and  that 
they  eflFected  this  object  we  may  infer  from  the  absence  of  these  Avords 
in  his  reply.  He  will  make  no  mention  of  others  now ;  one  step  in 
his  education  has  been  gained.  Not  only  so ;  it  is  to  be  further  no- 
ticed that  the  apostle  does  not  use  the  same  word  for  'love'  as  had 
been  employed  by  Jesus.  He  uses  one  that  speaks  of  a  more  familiar 
and  friendly  affection,  implying  less  depth  of  serious  thought.  The 
change  may  be  connected  with  his  recollection  of  his  fall ;  but  it  is  to 
be  mainly  traced  to  the  genuine  sincerity,  the  real  warmth,  of  his 
love  for  Jesu-s.  Jesus  accepts  the  declaration  of  his  love,  and  recog- 
nizes its  genuineness,  hence  the  charge  now  given  to  the  apostle. — 
He  saith  unto  him,  Feed  my  lambs.  This  charge  will  be  more 
fully  noticed  when  we  have  dealt  with  the  exposition  of  the  following 
verses. 

Ver.  16.  The  same  verb  C' lovest')  which  had  been  used  by  our 
Lord  in  His  first  question  again  occurs  here,  and  the  question  only 
diff'ers  from  the  first  in  the  gracious  omission  of  the  words  'more  than 
these.'  Jesus  had  appreciated  the  motive  which  had  led  Peter  in  his 
previous  reply  to  avoid  all  comparisons  between  his  own  love  to  Jesus 
and  that  of  others.  He  accepts  the  evidence  of  humility  aff"orded  by 
His  apostle,  and  in  that  direction  at  least  will  no  longer  test  him. — 
He  saith  unto  him.  Yea,  Lord ;  thou  knowest  that  I  love 
thee.  Peter's  reply  is  in  exactly  the  same  terms  as  before;  the 
word  'I  love'  being  that  Avhich  he  had  previously  used,  and  not  that 
used  by  Jesus.— He  saith  unto  him,  Be  shepherd  of  my  sheep. 
See  on  next  verse. 


21:  17.]  JOHN  XXI.  431 

time,  Simon,  son  of  ^  John,  ^lovest  thou  me.  He  saith 
unto  him,  Yea,  Lord;  thou  knowest  that  I  ^love  thee. 
17  He  saith  unto  him.  Tend  my  sheep.  He  saith  unto 
him  the  third  time,  Simon,  son  of  John,  ^lovest  thou 
me?  Peter  was  grieved  because  he  said  unto  him 
the  third  time,  ^  Lovest  thou  me  ?  And  he  said  unto 
him,  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things ;  thou  *  knowest 
that  I  ^love  thee.     Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Feed  my 

1  Gr.  Joannes.    See  chap.  1 :  42,  margin. 

2  3  Love  in  tliese  jilaces  represents  two  different  Greek  words.    ■*  Or,  perceivest. 

Ver.  17.  In  this  third  question,  apparently  a  repetition  of  the  first 
and  second,  one  word  ('lovest')  is  changed;  for  the  word  which  he 
had.  used  before,  .Jesus  substitutes  that  less  elevated,  more  fomiliar 
word  with  which  Peter  had  already  twice  replied  :  '  I  love  Thee.'  It  is 
this  that  constitutes  to  the  apostle  the  painful  force  of  the  third  ques- 
tion. Not  only  is  his  own  word  taken  up  by  Jesus,  but  that  word  is 
one  by  which  he  had  sought  to  give  utterance  to  the  strength  of  his 
aifection.  And  noAV  Jesus  says  to  him  :  '  Peter,  dost  thou  really  thus 
love  Me  as  thou  sayest?  But  a  little  while  ago,  what  was  thy  denial 
of  thy  Friend  ?  Is  it  otherwise  now  ?  I  will  take  thee  at  thine  own 
word.  May  I  trust  thee  that,  Avith  that  love  of  which  thou  speakest, 
thou  lovest  Me?' — Peter  was  grieved,  etc.  Peter's  grief  is  at 
once  intelligible,  not  simply  because  he  had  been  three  times  ques- 
tioned as  to  his  love,  but  because  the  third  time  his  own  statement, 
twice  made,  had  been  taken  up,  and  he  had  been  asked  to  consider 
well  whether  it  was  really  true,  whether  he  might  not  be  again  mis- 
judging himself.  But  he  was  not  merely  grieved,  he  was  also  disci- 
plined ;  his  grief  was  wholesome.  Up  to  this  point  there  seems  to 
have  been  some  faint  trace  of  self  in  his  replies  :  at  all  events,  he  had 
stood  before  his  Lord  as  if  his  Lord  were  peculiarly  reading  hhii:  he 
had  not  wholly  forgotten  himself.  Now,  however,  all  his.  past  weak- 
ness and  sin  rise  to  his  view :  can  he  who  has  been  so  guilty  have 
any  special  value  ?  Surely  not :  if  he  is  known,  he  is  known  only  as 
one  of  *  all  things;'  with  such  emptiness  of  self  he  will  cast  himself 
upon  his  Lord,  and  only  say:  '  Lord,  Thou  knowest  all  things ;  Thou 
seest  that  I  love  Thee.'  The  victory  of  grace  is  complete,  and  he  re- 
ceives his  final  charge. — Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Feed  my  sheep. 
We  have  still  to  say  a  word  or  two  of  the  three-fold  charge  which  is 
given  in  the  words :  'Feed  my  lambs,'  'Be  shepherd  of  my  sheep,' 
'Feed  my  sheep.'  It  is  a  little  doubtful  whether  we  ought  to  under- 
stand by  the  'lambs'  the  younger  members  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity, or  the  whole  flock  in  its  Aveakest  and  most  elementary  stage  of 
Christian  growth:  the  contrast  with  'sheep'  leads  upon  the  whole  to 
the  former  view.  The  charge  to  the  apostle  is,  '  Feed '  these  lambs ; 
not  less  than  the  older  members  of  the  flock  do  they  require  the 


432  JOHN  XXL  [21 :  18. 

18  sheep.  Verily,  verily,  I  say  uuto  thee,  When  thou 
wast  young,  thou  gircledst  thyself,  and  walkedst  whi- 
ther thou  wouklest :  but  when  thou  shalt  be  old,  thou 
shalt  stretch  forth  thy  hands,  and  another  shall  gird 
thee,   and    carry   thee   whither   thou   wouldest    not. 

shepherd's  most  thoughtful  as  -well  as  his  most  tender  care.  After 
this  we  have  'sheep'  twice  mentioned  (for  a  slight  difference  of  read- 
ing found  in  some  ancient  manuscripts  does  not  materially  affect  the 
meaning),  and  the  only  point  we  have  to  consider  is  the  difference 
between  'Be  shepherd  of  and  'Feed.'  The  structural  principles  of 
the  Gospel  at  once  tell  that  there  is  a  climax  ;  and  that  climax  seems 
to  correspond  to  the  gradation  exemplified  by  a  pastor  as  he  himself 
grows  in  knowledge  and  experience.  At  first  he  is  eager  to  perform 
all  offices  for  his  flock,  thinking  all  equally  important ;  perhaps  even 
most  pleased  with  the  rule  that  has  been  assigned  to  him,  and  in 
which  his  own  importance  most  appears.  But  soon,  if  he  has  the 
sprit  of  a  real  shepherd,  he  learns  that  to  bear  rule  is  comparatively  a 
small  thing,  and  that  to  '  feed '  the  flock  of  God,  to  nourish  it  on  pas- 
tures ever  fresh,  and  with  waters  ever  living,  is  at  once  his  most  diffi- 
cult and  his  noblest  task. — Peter  is  now  ready  to  hear  what,  in  tending 
his  Mastei-'s  flock,  he  is  to  do  and  suffer. 

Ver.  18.  Our  readers  may  call  to  mind,  that  'girding'  was  the 
preliminary  to  crucifixion.  The  words,  'verily,  verily,'  with  which 
the  verse  begins,  mark,  as  always,  the  importance  and  solemnity  of 
the  declaration  made,  and  thus  prepare  us  to  think  that  we  have 
more  in  them  than  a  simple  announcement  of  the  death  which  the 
apostle  was  to  die.  Again,  the  use  of  the  word  '  girded,'  although  not 
the  compound  of  ver.  7,  but  the  simple  verb,  reminds  us  so  much  of 
the  action  of  this  latter  verse,  where  the  metaphorical  meaning  is  ob- 
viously prominent  in  the  writer's  mind,  as  to  lead  here  also  to  the 
thought  of  metaphor.  Again,  the  use  of  the  word  '  walkedst'  (comp. 
chaps.  6:  66;  8:  12;  11:  9,  10;  12:  35),  which  in  its  literal  signifi- 
cation is  not  well  adapted  to  express  the  free  activity  of  youth,  sug- 
gests a  figurative  interpretation  of  the  passage.  Once  more,  the  men- 
tion of  the  stretching  out  of  the  hands  before  the  carrying  away  is 
spoken  of,  is  fatal  to  a  merely  literal  meaning ;  for  such  stretching 
out  of  the  hands  cannot  be  looked  on  as  a  necessary  preliminary  to 
girding,  whereas  it  would  be  a  natural  action  on  the  part  of  those  who 
willingly  submitted  to  their  fate,  and  who  were  desirous  to  help  rather 
than  hinder  officials  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty.  We  seem,  there- 
fore, compelled  to  adopt  a  metaphorical  interpretation  of  the  words. 
When  we  do  so,  all  difficulties  disappear.  The  allusion  to  the  time 
when  Peter  girded  himself  and  walked  whither  he  would,  becomes 
the  expression  of  that  self-will  by  which,  before  his  present  entire 
consecration  to  the  service  of  Jesus,  he  had  been  marked.  Now, 
however,  his  self-will  shall  be  cinicified ;  the  old  nature  which  sought 


21:  19.]  JOHN  XXI.  433 

19  Xow  this  he  spake,  signifying  by  what  manner  of 
death  he  should  glorify  God.  And  when  he  had 
spoken  this,  he  saith  unto  him.  Follow  me. 

only  its  own  gratification  shall  be  as  completely  powerless  as  is  the 
body  of  one  nailed  to  a  cross  :  he  will  be  so  truly  a  partaker  of  the 
sufiFerings  of  Christ  as  to  find  in  this  fellowship  with  his  dying  Lord 
the  Tery  ground  and  beginning  of  his  apostolic  activity.  Then  he  will 
'  stretch  out  his  hands,'  will  assume  the  attitude  of  one  who  is  giving 
himself  up  to  another's  guidance,  and  will  resign  himself  entirely  to 
the  disposal  of  that  '  other,'  to  whose  will  his  own  has  been  subdued. 
Then,  too,  'another'  will  gird  him.  that  is,  will  gird  him  in  the  sense 
in  which  the  word  has  just  been  used,  will  equip  him  for  his  task. 
Finally,  another  will  'bring'  (not  carry)  'him  whither  he  would  not ;' 
will  lead  him  in  paths  that  he  would  not  himself  have  chosen — will 
guide  him  to  fields  of  activity  in  which  he  shall  joyfully  submit  him- 
self to  Him  who  immediately  adds  :  '  Follow  Me.'  The  question  may 
be  asked:  Who  then  is  the  'other'  spoken  of?  The  only  answer 
seems  to  be  that  it  is  the  'other'  of  chap.  5:  32  ;  that  is,  God  (comp. 
also  4:  38). 

Ver.  19.  But  this  said  he,  signifying  by  what  manner  of 
death  he  should  glorify  God.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  in 
these  words  the  Evangelist  refers  to  'death'  in  the  ordinary  sense  of 
the  term.  If,  then,  we  consider  (1)  the  peculiar  expressions  used  in 
the  last  verse ;  (2)  the  tradition  of  the  Church  (usually  regarded  as 
worthy  of  trust),  that  Peter  died  by  crucifixion;  and  (3)  the  fact  that 
at  the  time  when  the  words  were  written,  Peter's  death  must  have 
been  long  past :  it  is  at  once  to  be  admitted  that  the  Evangelist  ayjplies 
ver.  18,  in  the  first  instance  at  least,  to  the  actual  crucifixion  of  Peter. 
But  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  all  the  clauses  of  the  verse 
refer  to  the  literal  crucifixion,  or  that  the  meaning  of  any  of  them  is 
exhausted  by  that  fact  (comp.  12:  32,  33).  The  singular  words:  'he 
should  gloriiy  God,'  confirm  the  interpretation  we  have  given.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  at  this  early  stage  of  Christian  history  this  expres- 
sion was  used  for  martyrdom.  It.  cannot  therefore  be  explained  in 
the  light  of  martyrdom  alone.  We  must  compare  such  passages  as 
12:  28;  13:  31;  14:  13;  15:  8;  17:  1,  4;  and,  doing  so,  we  learn 
that  the  death  of  Peter  is  not  viewed  simply  as  the  closing  act  of  his 
career,  but  as  an  act  in  which  that  second  Ufe  of  his,  which  had  been 
spoken  of  in  ver.  18,  reached  its  culminating  point.  Thus  there  is 
nothing  in  ver.  19  limiting  ver.  18  to  that  act  of  crucifixion  which  the 
several  clauses  of  the  verse  compel  us  to  pass. — And  when  he  had 
said  this,  he  saith  unto  him,  Follow  me.  To  confine  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  •  Follow  me'  to  the  literal  following  of  Jesus  on  the 
preseiit  occasion — as  if  all  their  import  were  that  Jesus  had  gone  for- 
ward a  few  steps,  telling  Peter  to  come  after  Him — is  so  much  out  of 
keeping  with  the  sense  in  which  similar  words  are  used  even  in  the 
earlier  Gospels,  and  so  much  more  out  of  keeping  with  the  style  of 


434  JOHN  XXI.  [21 :  20. 

Chapter  21:  20-23. 

Tlie  Termination  of  the  Toil  and  Suffering  of  Christian 
Witness-Bearing. 

20  Peter,  turning  about,  seeth  the  disciple  whom  Jesus 
loved  following;  which  also  leaned  back  on  his  breast 
at  the  supper,  and  said,  Lord,  who  is  he  that  betrayeth 

John,  that  such  an  interpretation  hardly  needs  to  be  refuted.  That, 
indeed,  our  Lord  did  move  forward,  and  that  He  meant  Peter  to  fol- 
low Him,  is  highly  probable,  especially  from  ver.  20.  But  this  is  cer- 
tainly not  the  whole  meaning.  The  external  following  foreshadows 
an  imitation  of  Christ  in  His  accomplishment  of  the  Father's  will,  and 
His  drinking  of  the  cup  put  into  his  hands  by  the  Father,  until,  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  the  cross  itself  is  reached. 

The  Termination  of  the  Toil  and  Suffering  of  Christian  Witness- Bearing, 
vers.  '20-23. 

Contents. — The  effort  to  introduce  the  passage  now  before  us  into  organic  unity 
with  the  rest  of  the  chapter  has  certainly  been  attended  with  as  much  ditiiculty  and 
as  little  success  as  in  the  case  of  the  second  paragraph.  Without  dwelling  upon  the 
opinion  of  others,  we  regard  this  third  paragraph  of  the  Epilogue  of  the  Gospel  as 
the  counterpart  of  the  third  paragraph  of  the  Prologue  (chap.  1 :  14-18).  That  para- 
graph is  occupied  with  the  comitig  of  Him  who  in  the  second  paragraph  had  been 
borne  witness  to  befure  His  Incarnation  by  Old  Testament  prophecy.  He  is  indeed 
expressly  spoken  of  in  prophecy  as  '  He  who  is  to  come ;'  and  when  He  comes,  pre- 
paratory witnessing  exists  no  more.  Here  in  like  manner  Jesus  in  efl'ect  speaks  of 
Himself  as  the  One  '  who  is  to  come  ;'  at  all  events,  twice  over  the  words  '  until  I 
come '  are  used  (vers.  22,  23).  The  '  coming '  is  thus  shown  to  be  a  prominent  thought 
of  the  passage;  and  its  correspoudencp  with  the  'coming'  of  the  Prologue  must  strike 
every  one.  The  contents  of  this  paragraph,  therefore,  are  not  to  give  us  information 
about  the  future  of  John  as  an  individual — information  which  they  do  give;  but  they 
are  designed  to  call  our  thoughts  to  the  termination  of  Christian  witnessing,  w  liich 
will  at  length,  with  all  its  labors  and  sufferings,  close  in  the  joy  of  the  Second  Coming 
of  the  Lord.    The  special  interpretation  of  the  verses  will  confirm  this  view. 

Ver.  20.  It  is  impossible  to  think  that  the  Evangelist  intends  us  to 
contine  our  attention  to  the  literal  details  given  in  this  verse.  The 
long  description  by  which  he  indicates  himself  would  be  entirely  out 
of  place  were  he  brought  before  us  as  simply  taking  a  few  steps  after 
Jeeus  and  Peter.  Besides  this,  the  verb  '  to  follow,'  which,  as  we 
have  seen,  was  used  metaphorically  as  well  as  literally  in  ver.  19, 
must  certainly  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  here.  John  is  here 
not  simply  the  individual ;  he  is  the  apostle  following  Peter  in  apos- 
tolic work,  and,  like  him,  representative  (though  in  a  different  aspect) 
of  all  Christian  laborers  and  witnesses  What  the  difference  of  aspect 
is,  is  shown  by  the  special  manner  in  which  he  describes  himself. 


21 :  21, 22.]  JOHN  XXI.  435 

21  thee  ?   Peter  therefore  seeiDg  him  saith  to  Jesa?,  Lord, 

22  ^and  what  shall  this  man  do  ?     Jesus  saith  mito  him, 

1  Gr.  and  this  matt,  vhatf 

He  is  not  only  the  'disciple  whom  Jesus  loved ;'  he  is  the  apostle  who 
•  leaned  back  on  the  breast  of  Jesus  at  the  supper,  and  said,  Lord, 
which  is  he  that  betrayeth  Thee?'  (13:  12,  25).  In  other  words,  he 
is  the  apostle  whose  mind  was  nearest  to  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and  whom 
Jesus  found  most  fitted  to  receive  the  deeper  revelations  of  His  will. 
John,  then,  represents  an  entirely  different  aspect  of  Christian  wit- 
nessing from  that  represented  by  Peter.  The  latter  represents  the 
struggle,  and  the  death  at  the  end  of  it,  by  which  God  is  glorified. 
The  other  represents  patient  waiting  for  the  glorious  revelation  of 
Jesus  at  His  second  coming. 

Vers.  21.  22.  Peter  therefore  seeing  him  saith  to  Jesus, 
Lord,  and  what  of  this  man  ?  It  was  a  natural  question.  Al- 
though Peter  did  not  know  the  full  meaning  of  the  words  just  ad- 
dressed to  himself,  he  felt  that  they  betokened  trial,  sorrow,  perhaps 
even  prison  and  death.  When,  therefore,  he  saw  John  following 
Jesus,  nothing  would  more  readily  occur  to  him  than  to  ask.  And 
what.  Lord,  shall  be  his  fate?  Tet  the  answer  of  Jesus  evidently  im- 
plies that  there  was  something  not  altogether  to  be  commended  in  the 
spirit  or  in  the  tone  of  Peter" s  question.  TVe  cannr t  imagine  that 
such  an  answer  would  have  been  given  to  a  question  in  which  affec- 
tionate interest  was  the  leading  feature.  We  have  indeed  no  reason 
to  think  that  the  question  was  dictated  by  envy,  but  there  was  proba- 
bly impatience  of  the  calm  spirit  of  John,  of  that  calmness  which  had 
immediately  before  contrasted  so  strikingly  with  his  own  impetuosity, 
—  for  when  he  had  thrown  himself  into  the  sea  to  hasten  to  his  Mas- 
ter. John  had  remained  in  the  boat  dragging  to  the  shore  the  net  with 
fishes.  To  this  spirit  accordingly  .Jesus  replies. — Jesus  saith  unto 
him,  If  I  will  that  he  abide^till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee  ? 
Follow  thou  me.  In  other  words  :  '  Thou  hast  no  right  to  be  im- 
patient of\the  quiet  and  meditative  spirit  of  thy  brother  Apostle. 
True,  I  have  spoken  to  thee  of  heavy  trials  only.  But  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  he  may  nut  have  his  own  trials,  in  the  work  given  him  to  do. 
Thou  art  right,  I  praise  thy  spirit,  only  preparing  thee  for  the  inevi- 
table consequences.  But  his  spirit  is  right,  too.  Let  it  be  thj/  con- 
cern' ('thou'  is  emphatic)  'to  follow  Me;  and  as  for  him.  if  I  will 
that  he  abide niU  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thee?'  By  the  'coming' 
here  spoken  of  can  be  understood  nothing  but  the  Second  Coming  of 
the  Lord.  It  is  the  object  of  Jesus,  as  we  shall  see  more  fully  on  ver. 
26,  to  give  emphasis  to  the  thought  of  His  Second  Coming,  that  He 
may  thus  bring  oiit  the  truth  that  then  shall  be  the  end  of  all  toil  and 
waiting. — that  then  His  witnesses  shall  rest  from  their  labors,  with 
their  works  following  them.  At  the  same  time  we  would  not  venture 
wholly  to  exclude  the  thought  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  But 
the  relation  of  that  event  to  the  '  coming  of  the  Lord '  is  a  topic  upon 


436  JOHN  XXI.  [21 :  23. 

If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to 
23  thee  ?  follow  thou  me.  This  sayiog  therefore  went 
forth  among  the  brethren,  that  that  disciple  should 
not  die  :  yet  Jesus  said  not  unto  him,  that  he  should 
not  die ;  but,  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what 
is  that  to  thee  ? 

which  Tve  cannot  enter  here.  The  point  of  the  contrast  then  between 
the  words  bpoken  respectively  to  Peter  and  John,  is  not  that  between 
a  violent  death  by  martyrdom  and  a  peaceful  departure  ;  but  that 
between  impetuous  and  struggling  apostleship,  ending  in  a  violent 
death  and  quiet,  thoughtful,  mediiative  waiting  for  the  Second  Com- 
ing of  Jesus,  ending  in  a  peaceful  ti-ansition  to  the  heavenly  repose. 
Neither  Peter  nor  himself  is  to  the  Evangelist  a  mere  individual, 
Each  is  a  type  of  one  aspect  of  apostolic  working, — of  Christian  wit- 
nessing for  Jesus  to  the  very  end  of  time.  But  the  struggling  wit- 
nesses are  impatient  of  such  as  are  meditative,  the  active  of  the  pas- 
sive, the  warring  of  the  waiting.  They  do  not  see  that  the  work  of 
the  latter  is  not  less  important  than  their  own,  and  that  it  touches  the 
very  springs  of  the  Church's  life.  They  undervalue  it,  because  its 
struggle  is  not  visible  enough.  They  cry,  '  This  work.  Lord,  is  it 
really  like  our  work,  work  for  Thee?'  And  Jesus  replies,  'I judge 
of  that.  If  I  will  that  it  go  on  until  I  come,  what  is  that  to  you  ? 
Your  path  is  clear  ;  follow  ye  me.' 

Ver.  23.  This  -word  therefore  went  forth  among  the  bre- 
thren, That  disciple  dieth  not.  Yet  Jesus  said  not  unto 
him,  He  dieth  not ;  but,  If  I  will  that  he  abide  till  I  come, 
what  is  that  to  thee  ?  Having  reported  the  answer  of  Jesus,  the 
Evangelist  is  constrained  to  correct  a  misapprehension  of  its  meaning 
which  had  prevailed  in  the  Chui'ch.  At  the  same  time  his  giving 
again  the  words  of  Jesus  in  the  same  form  as  before  shows  the  great 
importance  which  he  attached  to  them,  and  leads  to  the  belief  that 
something  in  them  had  for  him  a  peculiar  charm.  If  so,  the  words 
that  attracted  him  could  only  be  '  till  I  come.'  It  is  the  thought  of 
this  Second  Coming  that  John  finds  to  be  the  prominent  point  in  the 
words  of  his  Master.  He  beholds  in  them  the  assurance  that  there 
was  an  end  fixed  for  all  toil  and  suffering  incurred  in  the  task  of  wit- 
nessing for  Jesus,  when  the  Redeemer  whom  he  loved  will  come  again 
and  take  His  disciples  to  Himself,  that  where  He  is  there  they  also 
may  be  (14;  3).  -       


21 :  24  ]  JOHN  XXI.  437 

Chapter  21 :  24,  25. 
The  Close  of  the  Gospel, 

24  This  LS  the  disciple  which  beareth  witness  of  these 
things,  and  wrote  these  things :  and  we  know  that  his 
v/itness  is  true. 

The  Close  of  the  Gospel,  vers.  24,  25. 

Contents. — The  two  verses  before  us  bring  the  Gospel  to  a  close.  Their  authenti- 
cit}-  has  been  much  disputed ;  and  not  a  few  who  accept  the  rest  of  the  chapter  as 
John's,  refuse  to  admit  that  they  are  the  production  of  his  pen.  Both  external  and 
internal  evidence  forbid  our  p;issing  upon  them  so  sweeping  a  condemnation.  Ver. 
2-3  is  certainly  authentic,  and  the  force  added  to  it,  when  thus  viewed  in  its  Johan- 
nine  character,  will,  we  trust  ajipear  in  the  commentary.  It  is  more  difficult  to 
speak  of  ver.  24.  To  accept  the  whole  of  it  as  our  Evangelist  seems  impossible.  A 
passage  in  his  Third  Epistle  has  indeed  been  appealed  to  (ver.  12j :  but  there  the  true 
reading  is,  'We  also  bear  witness,  and  thou  hiowcst  that  our  witness  is  tiue.'  The 
difficulty  in  tlie  verse  before  us  does  not  lie  in  the  plural  i>ronoun  'we:  '  it  is  per- 
fectly conceivable  that  the  Evangelist  might  write  '  we  know'  even  if  referring  to 
himself  alone.  But  it  seems  to  us  inconceivable  that  in  one  and  the  same  sentence  he 
should  write,  of  himself,  *  This  is  the  disciple  icho  witnesseth  .  . .'  and  '  Tl'e  l-new  that 
his  Tisitness  is  true.'  We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  last  clause  of  the  verse 
was  written  by  the  elders  of  Ephesus,  or  other  Christians  of  influence  there  ;  and  the 
only  question  is,  whether  this  clause  alone  or  the  whole  verse  is  to  be  traced  to  them. 
If  the  whole  verse  be  their  addition,  it  must  have  been  intercalated  because  they 
wished  to  explain  who  the  '  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved  '  was.  The  word  '  this ' 
would  then  refer  to  him  as  the  writer  of  the  Gospel,  who  was  well  known  in  Ephesus 
to  be  no  other  than  the  Apostle  John  :  the  apostle  and  the  '  disciple  '  are  thus  identi- 
fied. On  the  other  hand,  the  addition  made  by  the  Ephesian  elders  may  begin  with 
the  words  '  and  we  know.'  In  this  case  the  appended  words  are  to  be  regarded  as  the 
almost  involuntary  expression  of  their  confidence  in  and  admiration  of  one  whose 
Gospel  differed  so  much  from  the  earlier  Gospels  that  some  may  have  doubted  how  it 
would  be  received.  The  first  part  of  the  verse  will  on  this  view  be  John's  own  state- 
ment ;  and  its  similarity  to  chap.  19  :  35  is  a  mark  of  genuineness.  The  question  at 
issue  is  thus  reduced  within  very  narrow  limits. 

Ver.  24.  This  is  the  disciple  who  -witnesseth  concerning 
these  things,  and  wrote  these  things.  The  use  of  the  present 
tense,  '  witnesseth,'  seems  to  point  out  John  as  the  writer  of  these 
words;  any  other  would  probably  have  written  'witnessed,'  in  con- 
formity with  the  word  that  follows,  'wrote.'  The  word  'witnesseth' 
is  used  with  great  solemnity,  and  in  the  sense  which  it  commonly 
bears  (comp.  note  on  chap.  1:  7)  in  this  Gospel.  The  writer  means 
more  than  that  the  things  stated  by  him  are  true  ;  he  is  uttering  a  Di- 
vine testimony  to  their  inner  reality  and  value.  By  his  witnessing  he 
claims  to  be  more  than  a  historian  :  he  proclaims  himself  a  prophet  of 
God,  commissioned  to  announce  great  verities  to  men. — '  These  things' 


JOHN  XXI.  [21:  25. 


25  And  there  are  also  many  other  things  which  Jesus 
did,  the  which  if  they  should  be  ^vritten  every  one,  I 
suppose  that  even  the  world  itself  would  not  contain 
the  books  that  should  be  written. 

must  be  uuderstood  to  refer  not  only  to  the  things  spoken  of  in  this 
chapter,  but  to  the  Gospel  as  a  whole.  The  analogous  passage  in  chap. 
20  :  30,  together  with  ver.  25  of  the  present  chapter,  renders  this  in- 
terpretation absolutely  necessary. — And  we  know  that  his  "wit- 
ness is  true.  As  has  been  already  said,  it  seems  to  us  best  to  regard 
these  words  as  an  addition  made  by  the  elders  of  Ephesus.  They 
could  not  fail  lo  notice  how  different  this  Gospel  was  from  its  prede- 
cessors. It  might  seem  to  them  that  hesitation  would  be  felt  in  re- 
ceiving it,  and  they  stamp  it  with  their  authenticating  seal.  Or,  if 
such  were  not  their  motive,  the  words  may  be  little  more  than  a  kind 
of  involuntary  breathing  out  of  their  awe  and  wonder,  as  again  and 
again  they  brought  the  reading  of  this  Gospel  to  a  close. 

Ver.  25.  We  have  already  expressed  our  belief  that  these  are  the 
words  of  no  other  than  John  himself.  They  seem  to  contain  the 
Evangelist's  own  explanation  of  that  principle  of  selection  which  he 
has  followed  throughout  his  work.  To  have  given  a  complete  history 
of  the  facts  of  Christ's  life  would  have  been  impossible.  He  has 
chosen  those  only  which  boi*e  upon  his  particular  aim.  It  has  been 
usual  to  describe  this  verse  as  a  strong  hyperbole.  But  is  it  not  at 
once  more  reverent  and  more  true  to  say  that  the  language  here  used 
expresses  the  infinitude  which  the  apostle  beheld  in  the  life  of  Jesus, 
— the  fathomless  depths  which  he  knew  his  Lord's  every  work  and 
every  word  to  contain  ?  And  we  may  ask,  as  we  read  these  words, 
What,  apostle  or  disciple  of  Jesus,  known  to  us  as  belonging  to  the 
first  age  of  the  Christian  Church,  could  have  so  spoken  but  that  apos- 
tle whom  Jesus  loved  ?  In  no  part  of  his  work  does  he  expressly 
name  himself,  nor  is  this  necessary.  He  is  named  by  almost  every 
line  that  he  has  written,  by  almost  every  touch  of  the  pencil  with 
which  he  has  drawn  his  picture.  Let  us  imitate  his  example ;  and, 
instead  of  closing  with  the  thought  of  the  servant,  close  rather  with 
the  thought  of  the  Master  whose  eternal  existence  was  taught  us  by 
the  first,  and  whose  infinite  fulness  is  now  taught  us  by  the  last  words 
of  this  Gospel. 


7:53—8:1.]  JOHN  VII.— VIII.  439 


APPENDIX  TO  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JOHN. 

Chapter  7:  53—8:  11. 

The  Woman  taken  in  Adultery, 

53      ^[And  they  went  every  man  unto  his  own  house: 

8 :  1, 2  but  Jesus  went  unto  the  mount  of  Olives.     And 

early  in  the  morning  he  came  again  into  the  temple, 

1  Most  of  the  ancient  authorities  omit  John  7 :  58—8 :  11.    Those  which  contain 
It  vary  much  from  each  other. 

The  Woman  taken  in  Adultery,  chap.  7:  53 — 8:  11. 
COKTENTS.— The  almost  unanimous  voice  of  modern  criticism  pronounces  the  nar- 
rative before  us  to  be  no  genuine  part  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  The  section  is  wanting 
In  the  oldest  and  most  trustworthy  MSS.  of  the  Gospel,  and  in  several  of  the  most 
ancient  versions.  It  is  passed  by  without  notice  in  the  commentaries  of  some  of  the 
earliest  and  most  critical  fathers  of  the  Church.  It  is  marked  by  an  unusually  large 
number  of  various  readings— a  circumstance  always  highly  suspicious.  It  is  full  of 
expressions  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  some  of  the  chief  of  which 
will  be  noticed  in  the  comment.  It  interrupts  the  flow  of  the  section  where  it  occurs 
— chap.  8 :  12  connecting  itself  directly  with  that  part  of  chap.  7  which  closes  with 
ver.  62.  Finally,  MSS.  which  contain  the  section  introduce  it  at  various  places — 
some  at  the  close  of  the  Gospel;  others  after  chap.  7:  36;  while  in  a  third  class  it 
has  no  place  in  John  at  all,  but  is  read  in  the  Gospel  of  Luke,  at  the  close  of  chap.  21. 
These  considerations  are  decisive ;  and  the  narrative  must  be  set  aside  as  no  part  of 
the  work  In  which  it  occurs.  How  the  section  found  its  way  into  the  place  which  it 
now  occupies  it  is  impossible  to  say.  Varions  conjectures,  more  or  less  plausible,  have 
been  offered  on  the  point ;  but  all  of  them  are  destitute  of  proof. — It  does  not  follow, 
however,  that  the  incident  itself  is  not  true.  We  know  that  an  incident,  very  similar 
to  this,  probably  indeed  the  same,  was  related  in  the  early  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  the 
Hebrews;  and  this  circumstance  lends  probability  to  the  belief  that  the  events  actu- 
ally happened.  But  the  great  argument  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the  story  is  afforded 
by  the  character  of  the  narrative  itself.  It  bears  the  unmistakable  impress  of  a 
wisdom  which  could  not  have  originated  with  the  men  of  our  Lord's  time,  and  which 
(as  is  shown  by  the  objections  often  made  to  it)  the  world  even  in  our  own  time  hardly 
comprehends.  It  may  be  noted  in  addition  that  the  incident  bears  in  its  spirit  a 
striking  similarity  to  that  recorded  in  Mark  12:  13-17  (Matt.  22:  15-22;  Luke  20: 
20-2C).  Bishop  Lightfoot  adduces  strong  evidence  to  show  that  the  story  was  one  of 
the  illustrative  anecdotes  of  Papias  (Contemp.  Review,  vol.  xxvi.,  p.  847).  If  so,  it 
must  have  been  in  circulation  from  the  very  earliest  times. 

Ver.  53.    And  they  -went  each  one  unto  his  o"wn  house. 

The  first  words  of  the  section  confirm  the  doubts  which  we  have  ex- 
pressed as  to  its  genuineness.  They  are  not  a  natural  mode  of  de- 
scribing the  breaking  up  of  the  Sanhedrin  which  had  been  in  assembly 
(ver,  45) ;  and  no  other  persons  have  been  mentioned  to  whom  it  is 
possible  to  apply  them. 

Ver.  1.     But  Jesus  went  unto  the  mount  of  Olives.    No 


440  JOHN  VIII.  [8  i  3,  4. 

and  all  the  people  came  unto  him ;  and  he  sat  down 

3  and  taught  them.     And  the  scribes  and  the  Pharisees 
bring  a  woman  taken  in  adultery ;  and  having  set  her 

4  in  the  midst,  they  say  unto  him,  ^  Master,  this  woman 

1  Or,  Teacher. 

mention  is  made  of  the  Mount  of  Olives  in  any  other  passage  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  but  it  is  more  than  once  spoken  of  in  the  Gospel  of 
Luke  as  a  place  to  which  Jesus  was  wont  to  retire  at  the  close  of  Ilis 
daily  labors  in  Jerusalem  during  the  Passion  week.  He  could  thus 
pass  from  the  hurry  and  confusion  of  a  large  city  to  the  solitude  of  a 
hillside  or  of  its  retiring  hollows,  where  the  sense  of  peace  is  deepened 
by  the  thought  of  the  busy  life  which  is  so  near  at  hand.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  our  Lord  intended  to  spend  the  whole  night  upon  the 
Mount ;  and  it  may  be  that  He  would  spend  it  as  He  did  before  mak- 
ing choice  of  His  twelve  apostles,  'in  prayer  to  God,'  (Luke  6:  12). 

Ver.  2.  And  at  dawn  he  came  again  into  the  temple- 
courts,  and  all  the  people  came  unto  him,  and  he  sat  down 
and  taught  them.  With  the  return  of  day  Jesus  resumed  His 
teaching  of  the  people  ;  and  they,  on  their  part,  seem  to  have  been 
powerfully  attracted  by  His  words.  According  to  the  custom  of  the 
time,  He  sat  with  His  hearers  gathered  round  Him.  The  custom  may 
be  observed  in  Turkish  mosques  at  the  present  day.  The  sitting  of 
Jesus  while  teaching  is  not  mentioned  elsewhere .  in  this  Gospel. 
(Comp.  for  it.  Matt.  5:1;  Mark  9  :  35). 

Ver.  3.  And  the  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  bring  a  woman 
taken  in  adultery  ;  and  making  her  stand  in  the  midst.  .  .  . 
For  the  '  Pharisees,'  comp.  on  chap,  1 :  24 :  for  the  '  scribes,'  on  Matt. 
7 :  29.  John  nowhere  else  mentions  the  scribes  :  they  are  frequently 
conjoined  with  the  Pharisees  in  the  earlier  Gospels  (Matt,  5:  20, 
Mark  7:5;  Luke 6  :  7,  etc.).  The  scene  described  in  the  words  be- 
fore us  must  have  been  in  a  high  degree  impressive*and  exciting.  The 
people  are  still  gathered  arctind  Jesus  and  listening  intently  to  His 
words,  when  suddenly  His  discourse  is  interrupted  by  the  religious 
authorities  of  the  land,  who  force  their  way  through  the  crowd  drag- 
ging the  unhappy  culprit  along  with  them, — their  faces  bearing  all  the 
mai-ks  of  eager  passion  to  entrap  the  object  of  their  hatred  ;  their 
hands  (as  will  appear  more  clearly  from  ver.  7)  already  grasping  the 
stones  by  which  they  would  at  least  indicate  their  conviction  of  the 
woman' s  guilt ;  their  words,  even  before  they  reach  the  Saviour,  send- 
ing a  thrill  of  horror  through  the  multitude, — '  she  has  been  taken  in 
the  very  act.'  Without  the  slightest  feeling  of  compunction,  they 
compel  the  woman  to  stand  in  the  midst  of  the  throng,  and  then  they 
address  themselves  to  Jesus. 

Ver.  4.  They  say  unto  him,  Teacher,  this  woman  hath 
been  taken  committing  adultery,  in  the  very  act.  Not  only 
■was  the  sin  grievous:  the  point  is  that  there  was  no  possibility  of  de- 


8 :  5,  6.]  JOHN  VIII.  •  441 

6  hath  been  taken  in  adultery,  in  the  veiy  act.  Now 
in  the  law  Moses  commanded  us  to  stone  such  :  what 

6  then  say  est  thou  of  her  ?  And  this  they  said,  tempt- 
ing him,  that  they  might  have  whereof  to  accuse  him. 
But  Jesus  stooped  down,  and  with  his  finger  wrote 

1  Or,  trying. 

nying  it.  No  process  of  proof  was  necessary :  there  was  no  need  to 
summon  witnesses.  We  may  even  well  believe  that  the  very  counte- 
nance of  the  woman  would  betray  her  own  consciousness  of  her  shame. 

Yer.  5.  Now  in  the  law  Moses  commanded  to  stone 
sucli:  what  therefore  sayest  thou  concerning  her?  The 
words  'concerning  her,' — which  do  not  occur  in  the  Authorized  Ver- 
sion, but  which  the  best  authorities  lead  us  to  accept, — throw  light 
upon  the  scene.  It  is  not  a  mere  abstract  contrast  between  Moses  and 
a  new  Lawgiver  that  is  before  us:  it  is  a  special  case.  By  the  way  in 
which  Jesus  deals  with  this  woman  shall  the  end  of  His  enemies  be 
gained.  The  law  of  Moses  expressly  decreed  death  by  stoning  only  to 
a  betrothed  virgin  who  proved  faithless,  and  to  her  seducer  (Deut, 
22:  23,  24).  It  has  been  inferred,  therefore,  that  this  woman  was 
only  betrothed,  not  married.  The  supposition  is  unnecessary.  It  is 
enough  to  remember  that  adultery  (in  the  ordinary  sense  of  the  word) 
was  punishable  with  death  :  and  that,  in  a  case  of  violation  of  the 
Sabbath,  the  Divine  command  to  punish  the  trangressor  with  death 
was  interpreted  to  mean  putting  him  to  death  by  stoning  (Num.  15: 
35).  We  need  thus  have  no  hesitation  in  believing  that  the  same 
mode  of  punishment  would  be  applied  to  all  sins  similar  in  character 
to  that  which  alone  has  the  penalty  of  stoning  expressly  attached  to  it. 
It  is  hardly  possible  to  pass  by  without  notice  the  singular  italicized 
clause  of  the  present  Authorized  Version  at  the  end  of  ver.  6,  '  as 
though  }i£  heard  them  not.^  The  clause  is  intended  for  a  translation  of 
certain  words  of  the  Complutensian  text  which  Stephens  adopted  in 
his  editions  of  a.  d.  1546  and  1549,  but  not  in  that  of  1550,  which  be- 
came the  Textus  Receptus.  The  words  are  not  found  in  any  early 
English  Version,  neither  in  Wycliflfe  nor  Tyndale,  nor  Coverdale,  nor 
the  Great  Bible,  nor  the  two  Genevan  Versions.  They  are  also  ab- 
sent from  the  Rheims  Version  of  a.  d.  1582.  They  first  occur  in  the 
Bishops'  Bible.  In  the  Version  of  a.  d.  1611  they  are  not  printed  in 
italics.  Dr.  Scrivener  says  that  they  were  not  italicized  earlier  than 
A.  D.  1769. 

Ver.  6.  But  this  they  said  tempting  him,  that  they  might 
have  whereof  to  accuse  him.  In  what,  it  may  be  asked,  did 
the  '  tempting '  lie  ?  The  common  answer  is  that,  if  Jesus  pro- 
nounced for  the  sparing  of  the  woman,  His  enemies  would  raise  an 
outcry  against  Him  as  contradicting  Moses :  that  if,  on  the  contrary, 
He  pronounced  her  worthy  of  death,  they  would  accuse  Him  to  the 
Eoman  Government  as  usurping  powers  which  belonged  to  it  alone. 


442  •         JOHN  VIII.  [8 :  7-9. 

7  on  the  ground.  But  when  they  continued  asking 
him,  he  lifted  up  himself,  and  said  unto  them.  He 
that  is  without  sin  among  you,  let  him  first  cast  a 

8  stone  at  her.     And  again  he  stooped  down,  and  with 

9  his  finger  wrote  on  the  ground.  And  they,  when 
they  heard  it,  went  out  one  by  one,  beginning  from 

The  explanation  thus  given  is  no  doubt  to  a  large  extent  correct.  But 
the  supposition  is  also  possible  that  these  scribes  and  Pharisees  were 
not  thinking  of  a  calm  judicial  sentence  which,  if  it  suited  their  pur- 
pose, they  might  report  to  the  Romans.  They  may  have  thought  of  a 
sentence  to  be  executed  at  the  moment.  There  before  them  was  the 
guilty  one;  the  crowd  was  round  about  her, — was  even  pressing  upon 
her  in  all  the  excitement  which  the  circumstances  could  not  fail  to 
awaken.  Will  Jesus  reply  to  their  question,  No  ?  They  will  instantly 
rouse  the  multitude  against  Him  as  contradicting  Moses.  Will  He 
reply,  Yes?  They  will  stone  the  woman  on  the  spot.  Then  the  Ro- 
man Government  will  itself  interpose,  and  Jesus  will  be  seized  as  the 
instigator  of  the  deed  of  blood —But  Jesus  stooped  down,  and 
"With  his  finger  -wrote  on  the  ground.  Jesus  will  not  heed  them 
at  the  first :  it  will  lend  more  weight  to  His  reply  if  it  be  not  too 
quickly  given.  We  are  not  to  imagine  that  what  He  wrote  was  a  sen- 
tence to  be  pronounced.  He  was  not  thus  to  assume  the  office  of  a 
judge.  What  He  wrote  was  probably  some  text  or  precept  of  Divine 
truth  which,  had  He  not  been  interrupted,  He  would  have  proceeded 
to  explain  to  the  people.  Such  writing  on  the  ground  is  still  to  be 
met  with  on  the  part  of  teachers  in  the  East. 

Ver.  7.  But  when  they  continued  asking  him,  he  lifted 
up  himself,  and  said  unto  them,  He  that  is  without  sin 
among  you,  let  him  be  the  first  to  cast  the  stone  upon  her. 
The  scribes  and  Pharisees  press  for  an  answer.  Then  Jesus  lifted 
Himself  up  (as  we  may  well  believe)  with  slow  and  solemn  dignity, 
and  spoke  the  words  recorded  of  Him  with  a  glance  which  must  have 
showed  His  hearers  that  He  read  their  hearts.  They  had  no  official 
right  to  condemn  the  woman ;  and  our  Lord's  words  embodied  the 
truth,  which  finds  always,  as  it  found  now,  an  answer  in  the  heart  of 
man,  that  we  have  no  personal  right  to  judge  the  guilty  unless  we 
ourselves  are  free  from  blame.  There  seems  no  reason  to  confine  the 
thought  of  'sin'  here  to  the  particular  sin  with  which  the  woman  was 
chai'geable ;  the  expression  is  quite  general.  It  is  from  the  mention 
of  'the  stone'  that  we  may  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  woman's  ac- 
cusers had  stones  in  their  hands. 

Ver:  8.  And  again  he  stooped  down,  and  wrote  on  the 
ground.  Jesus  returned  to  His  writing  on  the  ground,  and  left  His 
words  to  sink  into  the  hearts  of  His  hearers. 

Ver.  9.  But  they,  when  they  heard  it,  went  out  one  by- 
one,  beginning  at  the  elder.  It  was  a  correct  comment  on  their 
state  when  the  words    'being  convicted  by  their  own   conscience' 


8:  10-11.]  JOHN  VIII.  443 

the  eldest,  even  unto  the  last ;   and  Jesus  was  left  alone, 
and  the  woman,  where  she  was,  in  the  midst.     And 

10  Jesus  lifted  up  himself,  and  said  unto  her.  Woman, 
where  are  they?  did  no  man  condemn  thee  ?   And  she 

11  said,  ^No  man.  Lord.  And  Jesus  said,  Neither  do  I  con- 
demn thee  :  go  thy  way ;  from  henceforth  sin  no  more.] 

found  their  way  into  the  text.  They  felt  how  entirely  they  had  mis- 
appi-ehended  the  relation  in  which  sinners  ought  to  stand  to  sinners. 
They  were  brought  to  a  conception  of  morality  of  which  they  had 
never  dreamed.  They  learned  that  they  could  only  vindicate  that 
law  upon  which  they  prided  themselves  by  purity  of  heart.  They 
who  came  to  condemn  Jesus  went  away  self-condemned,  because  lie 
had  opened  their  eyes  to  that  spirit  of  the  law  which  is  so  much 
greater  than  the  letter. — And  Jesus  -was  left  alone,  and  the 
■woman  -who  -was  in  the  midst.  Nothing  has  been  said  of  the 
departure  of  'the  people'  (ver.  2).  We  may  therefore  suppose  that 
they  were  still  ai'ound  Jesus  and  the  woman  ;  but  they  are  silent  and 
awe-struck.  To  all  intents  Jesus  is  alone  with  the  woman.  He  reads 
her  heart,  as  if  His  thoughts  were  concentrated  upon  her  ;  and  she 
can  see  none  but  Him. 

Ver.  10.  And  Jesus  lifted  up  himself,  and  said  unto  her, 
"Woman,  where  are  they  ?  Did  no  man  condemn  thee  ?  The 
word  *  condemn,'  for  which  it  is  not  possible  to  substitute  another,  con- 
veys most  imperfectly  tlie  sense  of  the  original  Greek.  The  meaning  is 
rather :   '  Doth  no  man  doom  thee  to  the  sentence  of  which  they  spoke?' 

Ver.  11.  And  she  said.  No  man.  Lord.  Her  answer  is  a  sim- 
ple statement  of  the  f^ict.  Perhaps  the  Avord  '  Lord'  may  indicate  the 
deep  impression  of  the  greatness  of  Jesus  that  had  been  made  upon 
her  mind. — And  Jesus  said,  Neither  do  I  condemn  thee  :  go 
thy  -way  ;  from  this  time  sin  no  more.  The  word  '  I '  is  pecu- 
liarly emphatic.  The  language,  it  will  be  observed,  is  not  a  sentence 
of  acquittal ;  it  is  rather  an  intimation  to  the  woman  that  she  has  still 
space  given  her  for  repentance  and  faith.  Let  her  use  her  opportuni- 
ties, and  profit  by  the  tender  compassion  of  Him  who  drew  publicans 
and  sinners  to  His  side,  then  will  still  more  gracious  words  be  ad- 
dressed to  her.  Instead  of  '  Go  thy  way,  from  this  time  sin  no  more,' 
she  will  receive  the  joyful  sentence:  'Daughter,  thy  faith  hath  saved 
thee,  go  in  peace.' — We  are  told  nothing  of  the  efiect  produced  upon 
the  woman  by  the  remarkable  scene  in  which  she  had  borne  a  part. 
But  every  reader  must  feel  how  worthy  of  Him  who  '  came  not  to  de- 
stroy men's  lives,  but  to  save  them,'  were  the  words  of  Jesus  upon 
this  occasion.  The  narrative  has  lived  on  through  all  ages  of  the 
Church  as  an  illustration,  not  less  striking  than  any  other  recorded  in 
the  Gospels,  of  that  Divine  wisdom  with  which  Jesus  knew  how  to 
combine  what  human  wisdom  has  never  been  able  to  unite  — condem- 
nation of  sin  and  free  and  unrestricted  mercy  to  the  sinner. 


n 


Date  Due 


46  6 

m 

dZLl 

'» , 

i--'  I--  T1 

ijjfij  -< 

vWfV^jM 

ilmiiiJirffif'*" 

1       J  l5i0S|^«* 

iULL»ii4>d 

xiurr^"*^ 

'      Wl 

r 

1 

